Appeal No. 1997-3967
Application No. 08/482,058
specify any details about the filaments. As broadly recited
in the instant claims, we agree with the examiner’s analysis
that a “portion” of the film 16 adjacent the emitter electrode
and a “portion” of oxide 9 adjacent the electrode 17 on the
emitter side may be considered, as broadly claimed, a
“sidewall dielectric filament.” Whether film 16 is
“continuous,” as alleged by appellants, or not, does not
appear relevant to the broadly claimed “sidewall dielectric
filaments” since the cutaway view of Denda’s Figure 6 clearly
shows portions of film 16 and dielectric 9 situated, as
reasoned by the examiner, disposed adjacent the outer edges of
the emitter electrode and the base dielectric layer outside of
the contact hole, and adjacent the sides of the gate electrode
of the IGFET. We note further that the claims don’t require
the filaments to be specifically horizontally or vertically
“adjacent” the recited elements; only that they be “adjacent,”
which Denda’s Figure 6 clearly shows, as explained by the
examiner.
Accordingly, since the examiner has set forth, in our
view, a prima facie case of obviousness, regarding claims 14,
16, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 28, which has not been overcome by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007