Appeal No. 2001-1559
Application No. 09/237,174
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis
supported by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be
common knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with
the holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Our
reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a
prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664,
668, 148 USPQ 268, 271-72 (CCPA 1966).
A review of Sasaki confirms that the reference relates to a
method of forming isolation regions having a deep narrow trench
within a shallow wider trench. Sasaki further discloses (as
depicted in fig. 4E) that trenches 125 and 106 are filled with
CVD-SiO2 isolation material 113a (col. 6 lines 41-52). However,
we find no reference made by Sasaki to the use of ozone-activated
CVD process for depositing the isolation oxide or any specific
ratio of the width of the deep trench to the height of the
shallow trench in relation to the growth rate of the deposited
oxide.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007