Appeal No. 2002-2087
Application No. 09/733,836
“final structure” and cannot operate without source and/or drain
contact structures over the active regions (id.).
We agree with the examiner’s claim construction, namely that
claim 9 on appeal does not require that the STI separates the
source and drain diffusion regions of the same device (Answer, page
10). The claimed language must be construed as broadly as
reasonably possible when read in light of the specification as it
would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in this art.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). However, even in light of this claim construction, the
examiner has not established, by convincing evidence or reasoning,
that Lin discloses, teaches or suggests a STI that separates “a
portion of the source and drain wells” (see claim 9). Therefore we
determine that the examiner’s finding is not supported by an
adequate factual basis.
When relying on numerous references or a modification of the
prior art to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, it is
incumbent on the examiner to identify some motivation, suggestion
or reason from the prior art or knowledge in the art that the
references would have been combined. See In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We determine
that the examiner has not established a convincing reason or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007