Appeal No. 2001-0482
Application No. 09/186,078
oxide (38) on the main surface of the substrate (21) of Son as taught by Fulford so that the
MOSFET can be completed.”
Appellants’ arguments in response to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and
20 assert a failure of the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claim limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied Sun and Fulford references. In
particular, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 7-11; Reply brief, pages 1-4) that Fulford does not make
up for the deficiency of Son in disclosing the step of forming a gate oxide layer on the main surface
of a semiconductor substrate with the gate oxide layer “... having a thickness proximal to the edges
greater than or equal to that of the remainder of the gate oxide layer” as claimed.
After careful review of the applied Son reference, relied on by the Examiner as providing a
teaching of the claimed gate oxide layer thickness feature, we are in general agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. The Examiner has relied on portions of the disclosure
of Son (e.g. column 1, lines 63-66) which teach that implanted impurities in the trench corners cause
an increase in the oxidation rate at the trench corners to conclude that such a teaching suggests that a
subsequently applied gate oxide layer will inherently have a thickness at the corners greater or equal
to the remainder of the gate oxide layer. We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner has
presented no evidence to support the conclusion that this will necessarily occur. “[T]he Board
cannot simply reach conclusions based on it own understanding or experience - or on its assessment
of what would be basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the Board must point to some
concrete evidence in the record in support of these bindings.” In re Zurbo, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007