Ex Parte ELBEL et al - Page 3



          Appeal No. 2001-1559                                                        
          Application No. 09/237,174                                                  

               filling the trench with silicon oxide insulation material              
               and depositing the insulation material on the structure thus           
               produced in an ozone-activated CVD process;                            
               selecting a material of the reference layer such that a                
               growth rate of the insulation material on the reference                
               layer is at least by a factor of two less than a growth rate           
               of the insulation material on a surface of the trench to be            
               covered, a ratio of a width of the deep region to a step               
               height of the shallow region being approximately equal to              
               2*"/("-1), where " corresponds to a ratio of the growth                
               rate of the insulation material on the surface of the trench           
               to be covered to the growth rate of the insulation material            
               on the reference layer.                                                
               The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting           
          the claims:                                                                 
          Kameyama                           4,472,240      Sep. 18, 1984             
          Sasaki et al. (Sasaki)             4,551,911      Nov. 12, 1985             
          Bertagnolli et al. (Bertagnolli)2 DE 42 11 050    Jul. 10, 1993             
          Bohr                               5,536,675      Jul. 16, 1996             
          Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, page 3.                                     
               Claims 1, 3, 5-12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of the                   
          admitted prior art, Kameyama or Bohr and Bertagnolli.3                      
               Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and               
          Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference           
          to the answer (Paper No. 14, mailed January 26, 2001) for the               
               2  The English translation of the German document is provided by the   
          Translation Branch of USPTO, a copy of which accompanies this decision.     
               3  Although the Examiner includes claims 2, 4, 13 and 14 in the        
          rejection, these claims have been canceled in an amendment filed October 10,
          2000 as paper No. 10.                                                       
                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007