Appeal No. 96-3889
Application 08/336,956
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
do not agree with the Examiner that claim 11 is anticipated by
the applied reference.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
On page 7 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Yamaguchi does not teach raised source and drain contact
members as recited in claim 11. Appellants point out that the
Examiner points to elements 5 and 6 shown in Figure 10 of
Yamaguchi as being both the source and drain and the raised
source and drain contact members. Appellants argue that the
Examiner has double counted. Appellants further argue
that Yamaguchi fails to teach a cap dielectric as recited in
claim 11. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on
dielectric 9 shown in Figure 10 is in error because dielectric
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007