Appeal No. 1997-1624
Application No. 08/384,816
§ 1.192(c)(7). Therefore, we will treat claims 19 and 25 as
standing or falling together, with claim 19 as representative,
and each of the remaining claims individually.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 19
through 21 and 25 and reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 22 and 23.
Appellant contends (Brief, pages 3-4) that neither
Tamagawa nor Cogan discloses a second insulating material
extending from either the bottom surface of the substrate or
the drain region to the noncontinuous isolation layer.
Although Cogan does not explicitly disclose an insulating
material extending from "the bottom surface of the substrate"
to "the noncontinuous isolation layer," Cogan shows a silicon
dioxide material extending vertically through the entire
semiconductor and surrounding each semiconductive element.
Cogan explains (column 2, lines 35-47) that the resulting
structure has each section electrically isolated from each of
the other sections. In view of Cogan, it would have been
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007