Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
subject matter later claimed by him.” In re Wertheim, 541
F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).
In establishing a basis for a rejection under the written
description requirement of the statute, the Examiner has the
initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons
skilled in the art would not recognize in an applicant’s
disclosure a description of the invention defined by the
claims. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 265, 191 USPQ at 98. After
reviewing the arguments of record, however, it is our opinion
that the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasons or
evidence to satisfy such burden.
The Examiner asserts (Answer, pages 3 and 6-8) a lack of
description in Appellant’s specification of the formation of a
stack trench capacitor “concurrently and integratedly” with
the formation of a trench isolation structure in the same
fabrication
process as set forth in appealed independent claims 13 and 15.
We agree with Appellant however that, in integrated circuit
manufacturing, different structures are routinely formed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007