Appeal No. 2003-2096
Application No. 09/847,202
(see col. 4, ll. 48-50) while the claim 6 and 7 limitations have
been taught by the admitted prior art figures. With regard to
the claim 2 limitation, the examiner notes that figure 5 of
Luning shows that no portion of the sidewall spacers 52 lie
on top of the second portion of the isolation region (Answer,
page 6).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103(a). Accordingly, the rejection of the
claims on appeal under section 103(a) over the admitted prior art
in view of Luning is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007