Appeal No. 2001-0646
Application No. 09/227,935
pages 6 & 7) “[f]rom the above explanation, the Office Action
does specify the manner in which the side wall structure of the
prior art Fig. 15 is to be modified . . . . ” We agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning because the problem of the wall of the
connection hole being etched away by the hydrofluoric acid was
recognized in the prior art and the teaching of Kuroda to coat
the wall with an anti-hydrofluoric layer to protect it from being
etched away would have been a desirable feature that an artisan
would have executed.
Appellants further argue (Brief, page 8) that “[t]he purpose
for forming these two distinct impurity portions, described
above, is to overcome a significant problem with the prior art
Fig. 15 embodiment, i.e., the likelihood that the single impurity
region of Fig. 15 can extend to a width sufficient to short
circuit adjacent capacitor storage nodes.” Appellants further
assert (id. at page 8) that “the single impurity region of prior
art Fig. 15 is not equivalent to the two impurity region portions
recited in claim 1.” The Examiner responds (Answer at page 7)
that “it is important to note that claim 1 only discloses an
impurity connection means formed between the lower end of the
contact hole and the isolation region. The claim never discloses
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007