Appeal No. 1998-1100
Application No. 08/720,645
Appellant argues (Brief, page 9) that “Suganaga happens
to show a long bitline interconnect 4 with rounded sidewalls -
not hemispherical - in a contact area 10.” Appellant also
argues (Brief, page 10) that:
Even if combined, the references do
not suggest applicant’s hemispherical shaped
capacitor. It is not obvious to extrapolate
the combination of Ahn’s square capacitor 100
and Suganaga’s linear bit-lines 4 with rounded
sidewalls to form applicant’s hemispherical
capacitors 50. It is not clear what the
combination of the Ahn’s square capacitor
and Suganaga[’s] long interconnect line with
rounded corners would yield since neither patent
shows a hemispherical shape.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. The above-noted
figures in Suganaga appear to show a hemispherically-shaped
electrode 4, but the plan view of Figure 15 reveals that the
so-called hemispherically-shaped portion 4 is, as argued by
appellant, a long interconnect line with rounded edges. In
summary, we agree with appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 10
and 11) that the examiner has used hindsight to make a
“strained interpretation of the combination of Ahn and
Suganaga,” and that the examiner “has not presented a
convincing line of reasoning as to why the claimed subject
matter as a whole . . . would have been obvious.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007