Appeal No. 1998-2924
Application NO. 08/276,290
Appellant's Specification defines "bird beak" as the
reduced thickness portion of field oxide adjacent to the PN
junction between P-well and substrate. Specification, page
14, lines 14-19. We find that Sagara does not teach or
suggest a LOCOS field oxide having a bird's beak, as defined
by Appellants' specification. Additionally, there is no
teaching or suggestion in Sagara of a spacing requirement.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
Claims 15-18 depend from claim 14 and we likewise reverse the
rejection of these dependent claims.
Dependent claim 12 incorporates a limitation similar to
claim 14. Having already determined that Sagara does not
teach or suggest the limitation of a LOCOS field oxide having
a bird's beak or teach or suggest a spacing requirement
limitation, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, is likewise reversed.
Turning now to independent claim 19, Appellants argue
that neither the admitted prior art nor Tanabe teaches the
limitation "that the field oxide does not overlie the first
surface portion of the second well region between the emitter
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007