Appeal No. 1997-1247
Application 08/484,196
we can not ignore the fact that the other part of the trench
is in direct contact with the substrate; see items 11, 15 and
17 in fig. 2b. The configuration of the latter part of the
trench is thus opposite to the above claimed limitation.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 34 over Koyama.
In conclusion, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 25 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 25 to 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007