Ex parte SUNAMI et al. - Page 3

               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