Appeal No. 2001-0836
Application No. 08/991,448
page 3) that a HSG layer subsequently deposited after formation
of the floating gate 15 in Lin would necessarily contact the
sidewall spacers 13. It is our opinion, however, that the
Examiner has drawn this conclusion based on the unwarranted and
unsupported assumption that such HSG layer would cover the same
surface of the floating gate as the existing dielectric layer
illustrated in Lim’s Figure 3D. In order for us to sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we would need to
resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or
rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of the
rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ
173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g
denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
We have also reviewed the Esquivel reference added to the
proposed combination of Yew and Lim by the Examiner to address
the isolation trench features of dependent claims 11-13. We find
nothing in the disclosure of Esquivel, however, which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Yew and Lim discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art references, the Examiner has
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007