Appeal No. 96-0633 Application 07/971,041 formed only in the trench in the device forming region. Appellants’ characterization of Ishii at page 4 of the principal brief on appeal already recognizes that with respect to figure 1 the so-called trench 7 surrounds the device region 11 as set forth in independent claims 1 and 5 on appeal. At the bottom of page 4 of the reply brief appellants argue that claims “2 and 6 include apertures filled with a layer of material confined within the aperture.” Claims 2 and 6 recited identical subject matter but different parent claims and, instead of the characterization at page 4 of the reply brief as just set forth by appellants, merely recite that the second material is capable of completely filling the aperture and providing an interface with the insulation layer. Ishii’s Figures 1 and 3 show such. There is no more particular recitation in dependent claims 2 and 6 of the feature argued by appellants as to that expressed in the parent claims 1 and 5 on appeal. We also note that there are no particulars argued with respect to dependent claims 3, 7, 9 and 10. Therefore, we sustain both rejections of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 and 10. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007