Appeal No. 2001-2212
Application No. 09/019,409
use of a dry etch technique for forming stacks. We also agree with
the Examiner that, while Esquivel might not explicitly describe
layer 16 as a “tunnel oxide layer,” the combination of Esquivel
with Gill would include such a layer since Gill specifically
teaches the use of a tunneling oxide at column 3, lines 34-36.
We also find ourselves in agreement with the Examiner that, in
contrast to Appellants’ contention, the method steps listed in
appealed claim 1 have no requirement that they be performed in any
specific sequence.1 While the flow chart illustration in
Appellants’ Figure 2 and the accompanying description in the
specification describe a specific sequence of processing steps,
this is not required by the present claim language. In our view,
Appellants’ arguments improperly attempt to narrow the scope of the
claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no
basis in the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We also find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ further argument
(Brief, page 10) which asserts the deficiencies in the secondary
reference to Gill in disclosing the trench isolation feature of the
1 The concluding step in appealed claim 1 does require the establishment
of isolation trenches after formation of control gates; however, this sequence
is clearly taught by Esquivel.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007