Appeal No. 1999-1637
Application 08/417,537
examiner introduced the reliance upon Wong in Paper No. 21 as outlined earlier,
appellants have consistently referred only to Figure 10 in their discussion and have not
addressed any teaching value of Figure 9 as also relied upon by the examiner in the
rejection. Moreover, even Figure 10E appears to present the same final structure of the
method of making the various devices in Wong as is present in structural form in Figure 9A
and Figure 9B anyway.
We agree with appellants’ view expressed at page 37 of the principal brief on
appeal that Wong does not teach the features recited in claim 19 on appeal. This claim
requires that the channel region be a cylindrical region where the floating gate surrounds,
in the form of a sidewall spacer, the cylindrical channel region. It appears to us that the
opposite is true in Figure 9A and Figure B as well as the Figure 10E showings in Wong.
Whereas the claimed floating gate is claimed to be on the outside of a cylindrical channel
region in claim 19, these figures in Wong clearly show a floating gate region 905
surrounded by the channel region 903 comprising portions 903A and 903B.
We agree with the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 31, 34 and 35. The
discussion of Figure 10 begins at the bottom portion of column 8 through the top of
column 11 where Figure 10E is specifically discussed. However, in the intervening
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007