Appeal No. 2002-0578
Application No. 09/190,055
The examiner’s Sections 102 and 103 rejections are premised upon, inter alia,
interpreting the claimed “field oxide” as including the insulation oxide layer described in the
admitted prior art or Merrill. The dispositive question is, therefore, whether the examiner has
properly interpreted the claimed “field oxide” as including the insulation layer described in the
admitted prior art and Merrill. On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
As argued by the appellant (e.g., Reply Brief, page 5), both the specification and Merrill
clearly distinguish the claimed “field oxide” from the “insulating layer” relied upon by the
examiner.2 See the specification, pages 12-13, 20 and 22 and Merrill, column 4, lines 55-67 and
column 5, lines 1-9. In fact, Merrill teaches away from forming any field oxide in its imaging
device. See column 6, lines 35-40. It follows that the prior art relied upon by the examiner does
not teach or suggest forming an interconnect portion in contact with and extending above a field
oxide as required by the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the examiner, on this record, has not
established a prima facie case of unpatentability under Sections 102 and 103.
2 See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“When the
applicant states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined
with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its
relation to the prior art”).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007