Appeal No. 1999-0768 Page 3
Application No. 08/878,136
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that the
examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of anticipation. Accordingly, we will
reverse the examiner’s § 102 rejection.
In this regard, the examiner has the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing
out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single
reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327,
231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As developed in
appellants’ brief, the examiner has not met this burden.
The examiner has not reasonably established where Keiser
describes a substrate with a high capacitance storage node
having a trench filled with a conductive material as herein
claimed. Rather, Keiser discloses a semiconductor substrate
having dielectric material filled trenches. See, e.g., column
1, line 14 through column 2, line 5 and Figure 5 of Keiser.
While Keiser may use polysilicon (a conductive material) in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007