Appeal No. 2003-1260 Page 5
Application No. 09/850,654
OPINION
Anticipation by Kimizuka
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Kimizuka.1 The issues with respect to this rejection involve the claims of Groups 1 and 4-6.
Group 1
We have selected claim 1 to represent the issues on appeal for Group 1. Claim 1 is
directed to a semiconductor device which, among other things, has a spacer on the sidewall of a
conductive structure. Looking particularly at Figure 4F of Kimizuka, we, like the Examiner, find
no difference in structure between the device of Kimizuka and that of claim 1. As Kimizuka
discloses every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently, Kimizuka
describes a semiconductor device that anticipates the claimed device. See In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants argue that Kimizuka does not describe a spacer (Brief, p. 4). But we agree
with the Examiner that sidewall insulating films 13 are spacers (Answer, p. 3). Sidewall
insulating films 13 are in the location required by claim 1 and formed from silicon oxide, a
material described in the specification as appropriate for the spacer (Compare Kimizuka, col. 6,
ll. 25-29 with the specification, p. 9, ll. 23-29).
1The question of whether § 102(a) was the appropriate section of the statute under which to make the
rejection has not been raised on this appeal. Other than to note that Kimizuka clearly qualifies as prior art under
§ 102(e), we will not consider the question in light of the lack of dispute.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007