Appeal No. 96-1508
Application No. 08/112,445
We agree with the examiner that certain arguments by
appellants are not commensurate in scope with the claimed
subject matter. For example, while appellants argue [page 6
of the principal brief] that nothing in Anantha and Kawasaki
teaches “...to improve adhesion and reduce tensile stress of
sidewall spacers, and reduce delamination effects on the
dielectric layers,” nothing in the instant claims requires
such improvements.
Even so, we will not sustain either of the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the applied references are clearly
not directed to the claimed subject matter nor would the
claimed subject matter have been obvious thereover within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
The instant claims are directed to a “semiconductor die”
which comprises certain elements. The examiner has not
pointed out where the applied references teach or suggest such
a “die.”
Moreover, the instant claims all require the physical
structure of a “guard wall.” This guard wall is adjacent the
electrically active region and is disposed in an opening in
the dielectric layer, said opening having a main section and a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007