Appeal No. 96-1449
Application 08/188,630
which can be considered [an] array" (Paper No. 10, page 4;
Examiner's Answer, page 5). The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to arrange two capacitors having the
structures of Ogawa or Bae in an array in view of the two
capacitors taught by Hamamoto (Paper No. 10, page 4;
Examiner's Answer, page 5).
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a further statement of the
examiner's position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 15)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for the appellant's position.
OPINION
The examiner errs by failing to give patentable weight
to the claimed storage electrode "enlarging layer." The
claims recite an "enlarging layer conformably covering and
in electrical communication with" selected portions of the
storage electrode (claims 1 and 21) or first and second
storage electrodes (claim 14). It is clear that the
"enlarging layer" is separate structure in addition to the
storage electrode. Neither Ogawa nor Bae has a distinct and
separate "enlarging layer" on the storage electrode. Ogawa
discloses a storage electrode 11 covered with a dielectric
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007