Appeal No. 2002-1411
Application No. 09/144,535
the specification and claims support his definition of the term
“self-aligned” as referring to alignment at a region and that the
term does not require that all edges remain in line. See appeal
brief, page 15; see also e.g., specification, page 8, lines 17-20
and page 9, lines 1-5.
The term “self-aligned”, as defined in the
specification and as used in the prior art including
Coe, et al. cited by the Examiner is a structural
limitation that defines the physical position of two or
more features with respect to each other. A
semiconductor structure is “self-aligned” when
different features have a known physical position in
relation to a common third feature each time that
structure is made. . . . Once a structure is self-
aligned, it cannot ever change and become non-self-
aligned. Self-aligned is a physical relationship that
is created when the product is formed and remains in
the structure thereafter.
Appeal brief, page 13.
The rejection is reversed.
2. Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17-21, 32-35 and
37-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mihara in view
of Coe
A proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires, inter alia
consideration of two factors: (1) whether the prior art would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that they
should make the claimed composition or device or carry out the
claimed process; and (2) whether the prior art would also have
revealed that in so making or carrying out, those of ordinary
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007