Appeal No. 2003-1298
Application No. 09/369,579
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the
rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Vasquez, but affirm all other rejections.
We note that in appellants’ brief, with regard to all
of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejections involving Kawamura
(which address claims 1, 4, 5, 21, 23-25, 26, 29, 33, and
38-40), appellants provide the same arguments. Appellants
argue that Kawamura does not anticipate the claims with
regard to items (a), (b), and (c), summarized on pages 4-5
of the brief. Hence, our consideration of these items will
address each of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejections over
Kawamura, which in turn will address claims 1, 4, 5, 21,
23-25, 26, 29, 33, and 38-40.
Beginning with item (a), appellants argue that
Kawamura does not anticipate the claimed subject matter
regarding first and second separate active regions each
extending to a top surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Appellants argue that Kawamura does not set forth a
teaching “of where such an active region is located in
silicone substrate one.” In rebuttal, the examiner, on
pages 14-15 of the answer, sets forth a reasonable
explanation that in fact active regions exist in the areas
covered by resist pattern 4, and the examiner explains that
the Figures 1A-K of Kawamura shows a resist pattern 4 that
covers area on both sides of field oxide 9. Because
appellants do not explain how an active layer could not
exist in the area covered by resist pattern 4, we agree
with the examiner’s position.
With regard to item (b), appellants argue that the field
oxide region has a convex top surface opposite a convex bottom
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007