Appeal No. 96-1848
Application 08/161,604
having accordingly used phosphorus-doped silicon oxide to
constitute oxide layer (28c) of Haskell" (Final Rejection,
page 4; see also EA6).
Appellants argue that "[t]his rejection still results
with the inadequacies of the Haskell, Deleonibus and Shirai,
as set forth in the above arguments, regarding any
disclosures or suggestions necessary to render the present
invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103" (Br16). This
argument does not point out the error in the examiner's
reasoning about claim 34.
Appellants argue that "[a]dditionally, one of the
advantages of the present invention over the prior art is
the elimination of the extra step of planarizing as
disclosed by Haskell" (Br16). The claims do not recite
method steps: a "layer of reflowable material" only
requires the property that the material can be reflowed, it
does not require that the layer has been reflowed during
manufacture. The examiner concluded that a reflowable
material could be used over the silicon nitride layer for
the reason of allowing planarizing and appellants have not
shown the error in that position.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007