Ex parte HAKEY et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-0768                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/878,136                                                  


          be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 14, which is                   
          reproduced below.                                                           


                         14.  A substrate with a high capacitance                     
                    storage node, comprising:                                         
                         a trench formed in a substrate having                        
                    sidewalls and a bottom;                                           
                         a projection of said substrate centrally                     
                    positioned within said trench projecting above                    
                    said bottom of said trench;                                       
                         a dielectric material coated on said                         
                    sidewalls and bottom of said trench and on said                   
                    projection of said substrate within said trench;                  
                    and                                                               
                         a conductive material filling said trench                    
                    on top of said dielectric material.                               
               The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the              
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Keiser et al. (Keiser)        4,671,970                Jun. 09,             
          1987                                                                        

               Claims 14, 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §               
          102 as being anticipated by Keiser.                                         
               We refer to the brief and to the answer for the opposing               
          viewpoints expressed by appellants and the examiner concerning              
          the above-noted rejection.                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007