Appeal No. 96-1656
Application 08/182,809
commensurate in scope with the claims because the claims do not
prohibit use of LOCOS isolation on other portions of the
integrated circuit device.
Moreover, Morita’s element 32 could be considered part
of the oxidation region. We recognize that one of the disclosed
objects of the invention is to form “an isolation structure
having a surface which is substantially coplanar with the surface
of the adjacent active regions.” Specification at 4. However,
the claims are not so limited.
As to claim 24, we agree with the examiner that
Morita’s element 44 may be included as part of the oxidized
region, while still preserving element 38 as forming an upper
surface of the oxidized region.
Anticipation or Obviousness of Claims 22, 23, and 30-36 over
Morita
The examiner’s second rejection (Examiner’s Answer at
5-6) depends on ignoring “spin-on-glass” as a product by process
limitation failing to distinguish over Morita’s silicon dioxide.
We agree that the examiner thereby stated a prima facie case, but
we find that it was overcome by the declaration of James
Cunningham saying that spin-on-glass has different etching
properties. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007