Appeal No. 96-2940
Application 08/259,073
Appellant argues four differences over Hsue (Br9):
(1) the claims call for a glass layer between spacers as
opposed to Hsue which uses a thermal oxide, which is said to
provide a thicker mask allowing for more etch process
tolerance and the glass does not add thermal stress to the
chip as does Hsue's thermal oxide process; (2) the claims call
for polysilicon spacers as opposed to Hsue's nitride spacers,
which is said to not add stress like nitride spacers; (3) the
disclosed silicon oxide insulating layer under the polysilicon
foundation layers which allows the use of a one step etch to
remove the polysilicon spacers, the foundation layer, and the
insulating layer in the opening as opposed to Hsue which has a
nitride insulating layer and uses a three step etch; and
(4) the disclosed one step spacer etch as opposed to Hsue's
three step etch, which is said to have the advantage of being
simpler and less expensive.
We find that argued differences (3) and (4) are not
commensurate in scope with independent claim 18 or independent
claim 1 because these claims do not recite the material used
for the insulating layer, nor do they recite a one-step
etching process. This is discussed by the Examiner at EA6.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007