Appeal No. 94-0809
Application 07/707,365
162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969), so the patentability of a novel
method of manufacturing a product may not be limited by the
patentability of the product made.
For example, appellants argue that Nishizaka forms trenches
and fills them with polycrystalline silicon which “may be doped
with impurities to be the same conduction type as that of the
substrate” (col. 4, l. 16-18) and emphasize that Nishizaka’s
trenches are not identical in “structure” to the polysilicon2
plugs depicted in their drawings (Reply Brief (RB.), p. 1,
third para.; emphasis added):
There is a fundamental reason why Nishizaka does not
teach or suggest these steps, and this reason is founded
in the details of the structure taught by Nishizaka. The
polysilicon plugs 10 (i.e., the buried polycrystalline
silicon layer) of Nishizaka are not part of or over the
source/drain regions of Nishizaka. Nor are they part of
the device; rather, the trenches are used to separate
elements.
Appellants argue that because of this different “structure”
(id.), “Nishizaka refers to the function of these trenches as
‘element separating trenches.’ Thus, the trenches serve no
purpose other than to isolate elements; that is, they do not
function as source/drain regions” (Brief on Appeal, p. 3, first
2 Polysilicon is another name for polycrystalline silicon.
See Godejahn, col. 2, l. 7-9 (“A doped polycrystalline silicon
layer is applied to such a wafer and a silicon nitride layer is
then applied atop the polysilicon layer.”)
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007