Appeal No. 2000-1590
Application 09/130,226
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3-4 of
the answer. With respect to independent claims 1 and 10,
appellants argue that none of the references teach the use of a
nitride plug to control the shape of a trench corner as recited
in these claims. Specifically, appellants argue that Koike does
not disclose any process or structure which limits the oxidation
of the corner of the deep trench as claimed. Appellants also
argue that although Fulton is cited to teach that an oxide can be
substituted for a polysilicon which is oxidized, Fulton clearly
does not teach a nitride plug which limits oxidation to control
the shape of the corner of the trench as claimed. Finally,
appellants argue that even though Gardner teaches the use of
nitride spacers, Gardner does not teach or suggest a nitride plug
which controls the shape of the trench corner as claimed.
Appellants argue that the invention does not result from a mere
substitution of materials as alleged by the examiner because the
prior art does not teach or suggest the use of any type of plug
regardless of the material used [brief, pages 8-12].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007