Appeal No. 96-0633
Application 07/971,041
Essentially, the claimed first embodiment recites either a
single or plurality of apertures, each surrounding a
respective one of a claimed device region. On the other hand,
the claimed second embodiment recites features analogously in
the form of a plurality of openings, each surrounding a
respective device region.
Initially, we reverse the rejection of independent claims
4, 8 and 12 in as much as these claims recite the disclosed
second embodiment requiring a plurality of openings
surrounding a device region, further where each opening is
separated from adjacent openings by the first insulating layer
material and each of which is also filled with a layer of
second material confined to be within the opening. We agree
with appellants’ basic assertion as to these claims in the
brief and reply brief that no single reference and certainly
no combination of the teachings or suggestions of the
references relied upon by the examiner would have taught or
suggested to the artisan the claimed plurality of openings
surrounding this device region recited in each of these
independent claims. It appears that the examiner has not come
to grips with the distinction of these claims relative to the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007