Appeal No. 2001-2212
Application No. 09/019,409
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims as well. Although
Appellants have included (Brief pages 13 and 14) illustrations of
the structure of their device as opposed to that of Esquivel, we
fail to see the relevance of any purported structural difference in
relation to the method steps as claimed. Notwithstanding any
alleged structural differences provided in the illustrations
provided by Appellants, we find a clear discussion in Esquivel of
the relationship between the source/drain regions and the trench
isolation structure beginning at column 4, line 65 of Esquivel.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
With respect to claims 6, 7, 19, and 20, Appellants (Brief, page
11) have chosen to let these claims fall with their base
independent claims 1 and 12 by relying on arguments made with
respect to claims 1 and 12, arguments which we found to be
unpersuasive as discussed supra. Further, although Appellants have
nominally indicated that dependent claims 3, 13, 14, 16, and 17 do
not stand or fall together (Brief, page 5)), no separate arguments
for patentability of these claims are presented in the Brief.
Rather, the extent of Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 11 and
12) is to simply repeat what is recited in each of the claims.
Simply pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt to point
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007