Appeal No. 2003-1286 3
Application No. 08/898,187
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner and agree with the examiner that the rejection of the claims under §103(a) is
well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer
and for those discussed herein.
As an initial matter, it is the appellant’s position that, “the present appeal claims
11-39 stand or fall together.” See Brief, page 2. Accordingly, we select claims 11 as
representative of the claimed subject matter and limit our consideration thereto. See 37
CFR §1.192(c)(7) (2002).
The Rejection under § 103(a)
It is the appellant’s position that inasmuch as the Office, “has failed to meet the
burden of showing from Soclof ‘331 or any other evidence that, ‘the choice of particular
size of the active regions to achieve a particular desired device density on the finished wafer
would have been within the scope of ordinary skill in the art,’ all of the pending claims
accordingly ought to be allowed.” See Brief, page 6. We disagree with the appellant’s
conclusion.
Soclof is directed to a transistor wherein a plurality of transistors may be fabricated
on a single chip surrounded by field oxide completely isolating it from the substrate. See
Abstract and column 1, lines 13-16 and column 2, lines 24-26. The examiner has found
that Soclof discloses silicon rows embedded in oxidized silicon substrate. See Answer, page
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007