Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
Favreau to the basic combination of Taji, Gandhi, and Kameyama,
we sustain this rejection as well. Appellant contends (Brief,
page 15; Reply Brief, pages 9 and 10) that even if the modified
combination of Taji, Gandhi, and Kameyama were further modified
to include the flattening films of Ku and Favreau, the resultant
combination would not meet the claimed invention. In Appellant’s
view, neither of Ku nor Favreau disclose the etching back of a
flattening film so that the thickness of the flattening film in
regions over the gate electrode are thinner than other regions of
the flattening film.
After reviewing the Ku and Favreau references in light of
the arguments of record, our interpretation of these disclosures
coincides with the Examiner’s. Figures 1C-1G of Ku illustrate
the thickness of flattening film 56 over the gate electrode 36 to
be thinner than the thickness of the flattening film in adjacent
regions on both sides of the gate electrode. Similarly, Figure 1
of Favreau illustrates that the thickness of flattening film 35
over the gate is thinner than regions adjacent to the gate.
Appellant’s arguments suggest that Ku and Favreau have
flattening film regions which are thicker over the gate
electrodes than some other flattening film regions in
contradistinction to the claimed invention. Although exactly
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007