Appeal No. 2001-0646
Application No. 09/227,935
the specified shape and the impurity concentration of an impurity
connection means formed by the manufacturing method according to
applicant’s [sic, applicants’] written description.”
We agree with the Examiner’s position. We, like the
Examiner, see no reason why the impurity region (12) in Fig. 15
of the disclosure (prior art) cannot be considered as having two
regions, one closer to the lower end of the connection hole and
the other away from the lower end of the connection hole and
proximate to the strip-shape region (3). We are also of the
opinion that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
recited structure in claim 1.
Appellants further argue (Reply Brief at page 2) that
“[t]here has been no allegation by the Examiner that Kuroda
teaches or suggests piercing the element isolation region 11 to
form an interconnection with an underlying impurity region as
recited in claim 1.” However, we are of the view that the
Examiner uses the prior art Fig. 15 of the disclosure to show the
connection hole as piercing the isolation region recited in claim
1.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
1 over the admitted prior art in view of Kuroda.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007