Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
Aoyama does not discuss the nature of a result effective variable
as regards to the interrelationship of the slope of the recess,
the thickness of the pad oxide, and the thickness of the silicon
nitride. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 and 20-25 over Aoyama.
Aoyama and Wolf
In rejecting claim 8 (answer at page 7), the examiner uses
Wolf for the teaching of wet etching to the disclosure of Aoyama.
However, since Wolf does not cure the deficiency of Aoyama, the
combination of Aoyama and Wolf does not meet the limitation
recited in claim 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 8.
Aoyama and Fukunaga
The examiner rejects claims 9, 10 and 23-25 under this
combination at page 8 of the examiner’s answer. The examiner
asserts (id.) that “Fukunaga teaches that a tapered sidewall
should be used to prevent bird’s beak (see Purpose and
Constitution).” Appellants argue (brief at page 33) that
“Fukunaga fails to cure the deficiencies of Aoyama. Fukunaga
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007