Appeal No. 2001-1559
Application No. 09/237,174
motivation exists for combining Sasaki with Kameyama or Bohr and
Bertagnolli, there is no indication that the resultant
combination would arrive at the specific features recited in the
rejected claims.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions to arrive at the claimed ozone-activated CVD process
and the ratio of the deep trench width to the shallow trench
height are not shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, nor of claims
3, 5-12 and 15 dependent thereon.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007