Appeal No. 1997-1808 Page 3
Application No. 08/172,101
forming a first conducting film overlying an inside wall of said groove;
forming an insulating film on said first conducting film;
forming a second film overlying said insulating film so that said groove is filled up; and
etching said second film so as to embed the second film in said groove.
The other independent claim, claim 66, is directed to a method for fabricating a semiconductor device
and recites the same steps for filling a groove as claim 74.
In making the finding of no support, the Examiner notes that the original disclosure does not
include a description, in broad terms, of “forming a first conducting film ...,” “forming an insulating
film...,” and “forming a second film ...” as recited in claims 66 and 74 (Answer, pages 5 and 6). The
Examiner indicates that the Specification instead provides a description limited to “thermally oxidizing a
first polysilicon film to provide an etch stop when etching a second polysilicon layer overlying the first
layer.” (Answer, page 6). Appellants, on the other hand, argue that the disclosure as a whole provides
support for the subject matter as broadly claimed (Brief, pages 12-22; Reply Brief, in its entirety).
As stated in In re Kaslow:
The test for determining compliance with the written description requirement is
whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the
artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter,
rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the specification for the claim
language. The content of the drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(citations omitted).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007