Appeal No. 95-3455
Application 07/945,902
prima facie case of obviousness. In our view, the examiner
has failed to analyze appellants' claims vis-à-vis the prior
art in the manner required in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
While the examiner has relied on Kume as the primary or
basic reference in his rejection, the examiner agrees with
appellants' argument that Kume fails to disclose a laminated
floating gate electrode formed of polysilicon and that Kume's
floating gate electrode is formed solely from polycrystalline
silicon (see the Answer, page 9). Nonetheless, the examiner
notes that the rejection is over a combination of references
not over Kume, alone. The examiner also agrees "in principle"
with appellants' argument that the gate electrode of Kume
lacks an underlying tunnel oxide.
The examiner also agrees "in part" with appellants'
characterization of the Mitchell and Itoh references as not
requiring a laminated gate electrode formed from tungsten
silicide over polysilicon and as being directed to a field
effect transistor (FET) not a floating gate electrode,
respectively. Likewise, the examiner agrees with appellants'
characterization of Hillman as not being directed to a memory
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007