Ex Parte HOWARD - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2000-0937                                                        
          Application 08/959,620                                                      

          The disclosed invention pertains to a microelectronic                       
          structure.  More particularly, the invention is directed to the             
          structure of a capacitor used in a memory cell of a semiconductor           
          memory.                                                                     
          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.  A microelectronic structure comprising:                            
               a container formed in a substrate, the container having                
          sides and a bottom and the substrate having an upper surface; and           
               a layer of conductive material conformally disposed on the             
          sides and bottom of the container, the layer of conductive                  
          material on the sides of the container having all edges recessed            
          slightly below the upper surface of the substrate.                          
          The examiner relies on the following reference:                             
          Sudo et al. (Sudo)            5,555,520          Sep. 10, 1996              
          Claims 1-9 and 23-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                         
          § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Sudo.                    
          Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the                        
          examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the            
          respective details thereof.                                                 
          OPINION                                                                     
          We have carefully considered the subject matter on                          
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence             
          of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the              
          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                      
          consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s                    
                                          -2-                                         




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007