Appeal No. 2003-2096
Application No. 09/847,202
(STI) after a contact etch (specification, page 4, ll. 5-15).
This same problem was recognized by Luning, i.e., oxide loss at
the edges of isolation trenches during subsequent etching (col.
2, ll. 58-61; col. 4, ll. 1-7; ll. 42-59; col. 6, ll. 21-25; and
col. 7, ll. 47-51), and was solved by the installation of
sidewall spacers.
Appellants argue that though Luning teaches the use of a
sidewall, that sidewall is placed at a location different from
that of the invention (Reply Brief, pages 2-3). This argument is
not persuasive since, as correctly found by the examiner, Luning
teaches that the sidewall 52 is placed at a location
corresponding to the location required by claim 4 on appeal,
i.e., on and extending over the isolation region, inclined toward
the isolation region and over a portion of the liner. The
placement of the sidewall spacer “at the shoulder” (Reply Brief,
page 2) is not recited in the claims on appeal.
With regard to appellants’ arguments concerning claims 2 and
5-7, we adopt the examiner’s findings from page 6 of the Answer,
namely that Luning discloses the claim 5 limitation that the
sidewall spacer is made from silicon nitride or silicon oxide
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007