Appeal No. 95-4174
Application 08/165,553
The examiner points out, however, that in Figures 1H and
1I of Maeda, the “thick dielectric layer” 35 is indicated to
be 2000 angstroms thick [column 4, line 54] while gate
dielectric 23 is indicated to be about 150 angstroms thick
[column 4, lines 7 et seq.], which is “substantially thinner”
than the thickness of the thick dielectric layer. The
examiner’s position appears to be reasonable to us and
appellants have never refuted the examiner’s identification of
element 23 in Maeda as the claimed “gate dielectric” and of
element 35 in Maeda as the claimed “thick dielectric layer,”
nor have appellants submitted a reply brief refuting the
examiner’s response that Maeda’s gate dielectric 23 is of a
thickness (150 angstroms) “substantially thinner than the
thickness of said thick dielectric layer” 35 (2000 angstroms).
Accordingly, in our view, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation which has not been
successfully rebutted by appellants. Consequently, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Maeda.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007