Appeal No. 96-1567 Page 6
Application No. 08/112,914
plane.” (See brief at page 6 and reply at pages 2-3.) This argument is a combination of
two separate limitations found in claim 13. The first limitation is that “said first opposed
sidewall being of at least a given width within a common plane” (paragraph (a)) and “said
first isolated oxide film limited to less than the given width of said first opposed sidewalls
and spaced apart from said second opposed sidewalls” (paragraph (b)). In the two
embodiments of Koyanagi that the Examiner discusses, we disagree with the Examiner’s
characterization and interpretation of the orientation of the teaching. No matter how the
examiner defines the "first sidewall" and "given distance" the oxide film is over the entire
surface of the trench sidewalls according to the teachings of Koyanagi. Therefore, the
limitation of “less than the given width” cannot be satisfied.
To define the “first sidewall” as the entire portion of the “C” shaped trench, as the
Examiner did in Figure 6a, 6b, 18a and 18b would not meet the limitation set forth in
paragraph (a) that the sidewalls are substantially parallel. With the Examiner’s definition of
the “first sidewall,” a portion thereof would be perpendicular to the second sidewall.
Therefore, the first sidewall may be only that portion which is parallel and in a common
plane. On that portion of the sidewall, the oxide film covers the entire width of the sidewall.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007