Appeal No. 1997-1247
Application 08/484,196
would not have any significance or relevance. We also do not
find how Koyama
could suggest the claimed configuration of the slot trenches.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 25, and its grouped claims 26 to 31 over Koyama.
With respect to claims 32 and 33, the Examiner has added
two other references, Gill and Seiya. However, they, singly
or together, do not cure the deficiency noted above. Thus, we
also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 32 and
33 over Koyama, Gill and Seiya.
Claim 34
We have evaluated the Examiner’s position [answer, pages
5 and 6] and Appellant’s arguments [brief, page 3] and
conclude that claim 34 would not have been obvious over
Koyama. We agree with Appellant that Koyama does not disclose
or teach the claimed limitation of “said trenches being filled
with a dielectric material.” Whereas we agree with the
Examiner that item 16 (fig. 2a) in Koyama is an insulator
(dielectric) and can be considered as “filling” the trench 15,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007