Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer thereon,
wherein the nitride:pad oxide thickness ratio is at
least 10:1 unexpectedly did not increase the incidence
of defects in the silicon substrate to a commercially
unacceptable level [footnotes omitted].”
The examiner responds (answer at page 15) that “[h]owever,
optimization is not the most compelling argument for the
obviousness of appellant’s [sic, appellants’] claimed pad oxide
thickness. An even better argument is that appellant’s [sic,
appellants’] claimed range is very near Aoyama’s claimed range.”
Also, the examiner responds (id. at page 16) that “Aoyama teaches
that tapered sidewalls prevent defects and that a thin pad oxide
reduces birds beak . . . Therefore, appellant’s [sic,
appellants’] disclosure does not teach any benefits not already
known in the prior art and clearly does not provide unexpected
results.” Regarding the declaration, the examiner responds (id.
at page 15) that “[r]ather, appellant[s] merely submitted a
subjective declaration which did not provide any objective
showing of criticality whatsoever . . . . Therefore, the claims
are not commensurate in scope with any showing of critical pad
oxide thicknesses.”
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007