Appeal No. 96-1449
Application 08/188,630
without an enlarging layer, may be electrically identical
does not mean they are physically and mechanically identical
in structure. Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection of claims 9-28 is reversed.
The examiner states (EA6): "The examiner has cited the
reference Reinberg et al. that teaches the feature of an
added conformal layer and discussed reasons why it would be
[sic, have been] obvious to use one in Ogawa et al. or Bae
et al." We find Reinberg applied in the examiner's actions
to teach only using tantalum pentoxide as a replacement for
ONO dielectric layers (EA4, two places), not for teaching a
storage electrode enlarging layer. Reinberg has a tantalum
oxide dielectric layer 33 covered by a thin barrier layer 41
of a material such as silicon nitride to prevent undesirable
interaction between layer 33 and the polysilicon cell plate
layer (col. 4, line 57 to col. 5, line 1), but does not
disclose an enlarging layer on the storage electrode.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 9-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007