Appeal No. 2000-0660
Application No. 08/985,278
lines 1-22 and Figures 1 and 2. However, though we find that as
the Examiner states, the oxide layer 5 has a thickness of about 1
nm, this is only true of the areas "not" under the gate 9. See
column 4, lines 38-56 and Figure 2. Rather, we find that the top
oxide layer 5, under the gate 9, would remain at about 4 nm,
which is a greater thickness than the tunnel layer 3 which is
about 2 nm. We therefore cannot agree with the Examiner that the
Hayabuchi reference teaches the tunnel film (3) having a
thickness of approximately 2 nm and a top oxide layer (5) with a
thickness approximately 1 nm wherein it is inherent that the
thickness of the top oxide is set so that an amount of transition
of the carriers passing through the top oxide layer is almost
equal to or larger than the amount of transition of the carriers
passing through the tunnel film in a read operation. Therefore,
we find that Hayabuchi fails to teach all the claim limitations
of claim 5 and thereby claim 5 is not anticipated by Hayabuchi.
Further, since we find that claims 6 through 8 are dependent
on claim 5, and thereby recite the above limitation of claim 5,
we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6 through
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On page 5 lines 14-15 of the answer, the Examiner argues,
that independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10 and 11, are
1111
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007