Appeal No. 2001-0046
Application 08/971,014
Examiner’s reasoning, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed June
19, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on figure 23q of Sekiguchi for showing
cavity 9b2 formed in a first material (nitride layer 11a) and a
second material (oxide layer 20) (final rejection, page 4).
However, the Examiner indicates that the conductive layer
deposited in the cavity, as shown in Sekiguchi, is not “formed
on one dielectric layer while the vertical upper portion[s] are
formed on another dielectric” (final rejection, page 5). Relying
on figure 2 of Takaishi, the Examiner takes the position that the
reference teaches the missing features as polysilicon layer 22
formed on the first material (silicon rich oxide 8) and the upper
portion adjoining the second material (oxide 21) (id.).
Appellant argues that Sekiguchi fails to suggest the
geometric limitations of claim 1 and especially claim 8, which
requires that the cavity upper portion bottom be horizontal
compared to upper portion vertical sides (brief, pages 3 & 4).
In particular, Appellant points out that cavity 9b2 of Sekiguchi
does not have the claimed upper portion bottom and upper portion
sides (brief, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007