Appeal No. 1998-2884
Application No. 08/495,960
perceived differences between this applied prior art and the
claimed invention, and has provided reasons as to how and why
this prior art would have been modified to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our view, the Examiner's analysis is
sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has at least
satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. The burden is, therefore, upon Appellant to come
forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively rebut
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but elected not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered in this decision (note 37 CFR
§ 1.192).
Appellant’s arguments in response (Brief, page 7)
initially attack the Examiner’s establishment of a prima facie
case of obviousness since neither Iranmanesh or Okada teaches
the concurrent fabrication of a trench stack capacitor and a
trench isolation structure. We find such arguments to be
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007