Appeal No. 2002-0102
Application No. 09/298,879
wet oxidizing step, the second layer of gate oxide be formed
underlying the first gate oxide layer. In their arguments on
appeal, appellants repeatedly assert that none of the cited
references disclose or suggest forming the second gate oxide
underlying the first gate oxide. See, e.g., appeal brief, pages
8-12. Our discussion regarding the step of forming the second
oxide layer under the first oxide layer is provided on pages 9-10
and 11 in connection with figures 3-4 and 6-7.
The examiner concedes that El-Diwany does not specifically
teach a second wet oxidizing step to form a second gate oxide
underlying the first gate oxide layer. See examiner's answer,
Paper No. 11, mailed July 5, 2001, page 3, penultimate paragraph.
The examiner relies on Lin as disclosing a second wet oxidation
step. See Id., page 4. However, the examiner does not identify
in Lin or any of the other references, a specific teaching as to
forming the second gate oxidation layer under the first layer.
Rather, the examiner's response to appellants' argument that such
a step is not taught or suggested by the cited references by
stating that,
[f]urther it is a well known fact that any time
oxidation step is under taken a portion of the oxide
grows below the surface of the existing layer
(generally about 40%) and the rest grows above thus at
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007