Appeal No. 2001-2212
Application No. 09/019,409
appealed claims. Appellants contend that, unlike the present
invention, Gill does not contemplate the use of isolation trenches.
It is apparent, however, from the Examiner’s line of reasoning
expressed in the final Office action that the Gill reference was
applied for the limited purpose of providing a teaching of
depositing a channel stop dopant before forming a field oxide
layer. The Gill reference is used in combination with Esquivel,
which provides a clear teaching of forming isolation trenches after
the establishment of control gates as set forth in the appealed
claims. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F. 2d 1091, 1096, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the above discussion and the totality of the
evidence on the record, it is our opinion that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been
rebutted by any convincing arguments from Appellants. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 12, and 18
is sustained.
Turning to a consideration of dependent claims 2 and 15
discussed by Appellants at page 6 of the Brief, we sustain the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007