Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
Jost discloses a semiconductor device comprising at least one
microcavity (34) within a layer (18, 20, and 28) of the device.
(Figures 1-5.)
The appellants argue that Jost’s contact openings 32 and 34
extend through a plurality of layers rather than being “enclosed
in a single layer.” (Appeal brief, page 10.) We note, however,
the argued feature is not recited in the appealed claims.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the examiner has adequately
addressed the limitations of these claims. (Answer, pages 13-
14.)
We therefore uphold this ground of rejection as it applies
to claims 13, 15, and 16.
V. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Chou
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11, the examiner argues that
Chou’s elements 34, 36, and 38 constitute a “pinning layer” and
elements 14 and 15 constitute a “microcavity layer.” (Answer,
pages 11-12.) The examiner, however, has not identified any
evidence establishing that Chou’s element 34, 36, or 38 is a
“pinning layer” within the construct of the appealed claims.
Specifically, the examiner has not established that Chou’s
element 34, 36, or 38 is capable of changing the shape of the
microcavity, adheres well to the microcavity layer, and is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007