Appeal No. 2003-0230
Application No. 09/624,025
clearly utilizes the nitride for its different properties than the
oxide in the hot acid etching process. The record is unclear as
to why it is different, but in establishing the prima facie case
of obviousness the burden initially falls to the examiner.1
As the initial burden has not been met, we reverse this
rejection.
II. The rejection of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gardner in view of Arnold and Sheng,
as applied to claims 1 and 9, further in view of Wu.
As we have reversed the rejection of claim 1, we likewise
reverse this rejection for the reasons noted above.
III. The rejection of Claims 3, 11, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of
Arnold and Sheng as applied to claims 1 and 9, further in
view of Peidous.
As we have reversed the rejection of claim 1, we
likewise reverse this rejection for the reasons noted above.
IV. The rejection of Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gardner in view of
Arnold, Sheng, and Wu.
1 We additionally note that claim 1 requires the bottom of the
trench be exposed when the nitride spacers are formed. The second
oxide layer on the surface of the trench, through which the ions
are implanted, is removed. It does not appear to us that the
second oxide layer of Garner, 140, is ever removed. Consequently,
even if it were obvious to implant oxygen ions through the trench
bottom, the removal of the oxide layer does not appear to be
taught in the references.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007