Appeal No. 2006-2050
Application No. 10/045,913
of the trench insulator liners (specification, page 7), a “growing” process is discussed
while, when disclosing the formation of the trench insulator fill layer, a “depositing”
process is described (specification, page 9). This disclosed distinction is carried through
the claim language in which recites the “growing” of the trench insulator liners but the
“depositing” of the trench insulating fill layer.
In view of the above discussion, it is apparent to us that, since the etched
component 8 of the trench insulator liner in Shiozawa is disclosed as being deposited by
chemical vapor deposition rather than being grown, all of the requirements of each of the
independent claims 1, 15, 16, and 29 are not satisfied. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1, 15, 26, and 29, nor
of claims 2, 5, 8-10, 19, 23-25, 27, and 32-34 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 16-18, 20-22, 28, 30, 31, and 38-42 in which the Wolf, Lee, and Koike
references are separately combined with Shiozawa to address, respectively, the wet etch,
dry etch, and trench rounding features of the rejected claims, we sustain these rejections
as well. We find nothing in the Wolf, Lee, and Koike references, taken individually or
collectively, which would overcome the innate deficiencies of Shiozawa discussed supra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007