Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellant (Brief, page 8) that, contrary to the
Examiner’s contention, two independent processes are not being
recited in independent claims 13 and 15. Rather, it is our
view that the skilled artisan reading claims 13 and 15 in
light of Appellant’s specification would recognize that, as
asserted by Appellant, the trench isolation structure is
formed within the process flow for forming the stack trench
capacitor. Similarly, we find the Examiner’s assertion that
claim 15 is incomplete to be unfounded.
Claim 15 is directed to the formation of a trench isolation
structure, albeit within a DRAM forming process according to
the claim preamble; however, all steps required for forming
such isolation structure are in fact recited.
It is our view that the skilled artisan, having
considered the specification in its entirety, would have no
difficulty ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in
claims 13-19 and 21. Therefore, the rejection of claims 13-19
and 21 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is not
sustained.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007