Appeal No. 2000-1590
Application 09/130,226
The examiner responds that the nitride spacers of Gardner
are essentially nitride plugs as claimed. The examiner asserts
that Gardner suggests substituting nitride or oxynitride for the
oxide used by Koike for rounding the trench corner. The examiner
finds that the oxide material of Koike acts as a plug and that it
would have been obvious to replace the oxide “plug” of Koike with
a nitride plug as taught by Gardner. The examiner also notes
that there is no evidence that a nitride plug is superior to an
oxide plug [answer, pages 6-8].
We agree with the position argued by appellants because
the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We do not agree with the examiner’s critical
finding that the oxide layer of Koike forms an oxide plug in the
same manner as the claimed invention recites a nitride plug. As
argued by appellants, the oxide layer in Koike simply fills the
recessed areas with the oxide layer, but that process does not
constitute filling the recess with a plug as that term is
normally used. We also agree with appellants that the collective
teachings of the applied prior art would not have suggested to
the artisan the obviousness of replacing the oxide layer of Koike
with nitride plugs as claimed for controlling the shape of a
trench corner. We also do not agree with the examiner’s finding
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007