Appeal No. 96-0471
Application 07/995,582
Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art and
Tasch.2
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
position and to the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 14) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellant's
position.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
Appellant submits the declaration of Dr. Richard A.
Blanchard as evidence that one skilled in the art would have
interpreted the drawings and specification to mean that the P+
region extends to the sidewall 40 of the deep trench.
Claims 9 and 19, which recite "the buffer region is2
adjacent to the sidewalls and the floor of the trench," were
indicated in the first Office action to be allowable if
rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and to include all of the limitations of the
base claim and any intervening claim (Paper No. 3, page 8).
The examiner changed his mind, stating that "[s]ince the
claimed subject matter of claims 9 and 19 are well known in
the art, it is believed that claims 9 and 19 are also rejected
by the Prior art in view of Tasch, Jr. et al." (Examiner's
Answer, page 11). Other than this statement, we do not find
where the examiner has treated the limitations of claims 9 and
19.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007