Ex parte TSUTSUMI - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1996-1758                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/358,050                                                                                                             


                 electrode by a distance greater than said thickness t of said                                                                          
                 dielectric layer, wherein                                                                                                              
                          said dielectric layer comprises a first insulating layer                                                                      
                 formed in contact with said side wall of said gate electrode                                                                           
                 and has a film thickness equal to that of said gate electrode                                                                          
                 and a second insulating layer has a flat surface formed on the                                                                         
                 surface of this first insulating layer.                                                                                                
                 The Examiner relies on the following references:                                                                                       
                 Wu                                                    5,266,507                                    Nov. 30,                            
                                                                                                                    1993                                
                                                                                         (filed May 18, 1992)                                           
                 Ishikura (Japanese Kokai)                    2        58-153371                                    Sep. 12,                            
                                                                                                                    1983                                
                 Poleshuk (European)                                            0,102,802                                    Mar.                       
                                                                                                                             14,                        
                                                                                                                             1984                       
                          Claims 1, 3, 4, 10-14, 19, and 24-29 stand finally                                                                            
                 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the                                                                          
                 combined teachings of Poleshuk, Ishikura, and Wu.                                                                                      
                          Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the                                                                      
                 Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs  and Answer for the             3                                                            
                 respective details.                                                                                                                    

                          2A copy of the translation provided by the U. S. Patent                                                                       
                 and Trademark Office, March 1996, is included and relied upon                                                                          
                 for this decision.                                                                                                                     
                          3The Appeal Brief was filed December 27, 1995.  In                                                                            
                 response to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 31, 1996, a                                                                            
                 Reply Brief was filed February 23, 1996 which was acknowledged                                                                         
                 and entered by the Examiner on March 6, 1996.                                                                                          
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007