Appeal No. 2001-0046
Application 08/971,014
We agree with Appellant’s assertion (brief, page 3) that
the combination of Sekiguchi and Takaishi fails to teach or
suggest the specific steps for forming the cavity, as defined in
claim 1. As discussed above, neither Sekiguchi nor Takaishi
exposes the contact region in the semiconductor material region
when portions of the second insulating layer are removed such
that the conductive layer formed in the cavity contacts the
contact region. In our view, the Examiner’s position that the
claimed shape of the cavity is formed as Takaishi’s conductive
layer 22 conforms to the horizontal bottom surface at first
insulating layer 8 and the sides defined by second insulating
layer 21 (answer, page 4), is inconclusive because neither
reference teaches or suggests the steps of exposing and
contacting the contact region. Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it
would have been obvious to combine Sekiguchi and Takaishi, as
held by the Examiner, the combination would still fall short of
teaching or suggesting the claimed removing portions of the layer
of the second material and exposing the contact region and
forming a cavity having the shape, as recited in claim 1.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 because the necessary teachings and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007