Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
where this is the case has not been pointed out by Appellant, we
would point out that, even assuming arguendo that this were the
case, the present claim language requires only that the
flattening film over the gate electrode be thinner than other
flattening film regions, not all other flattening film regions as
Appellant’s arguments would have us interpret the claims.
Therefore, since Appellant’s arguments have not overcome the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 4 and 10, and
dependent claims 6 and 12 not separately argued by Appellant, is
sustained.
In conclusion, we have sustained the Examiner’s U.S.C. § 103
rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12
is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007