Appeal No. 2003-1298
Application No. 09/369,579
claims 1, 4, 5, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, and 38-40 as
being anticipated by Kawamura.1
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 27 and
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kawamura, as applied to claims 1 and 26, and further
in view of Park
On page 11 of the brief, appellants argue that, for
the same reasons (discussed above), Kawamura does not teach
or suggest a number of features recited in claims 1 and 26.
Appellants argue that Park provides no teaching to remedy
the deficiencies of Kawamura.
However, as determined above, we do not agree with
appellants that Kawamura is deficient, and we therefore
determine that the examiner’s rejection of these claims, as
presented on pages 13-14 of the answer, sets forth a prima
facie case obviousness.
We therefore affirm this rejection.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 34 as being
anticipated by Vasquez
In this rejection, appellants argue that Vasquez does
not disclose a pair of dielectric structures, each of which
contacts a respective active region in a semiconductor
substrate, and each one of the pair of dielectric
structures constitutes a structural barrier that separates
1 Again, we note that for each grouping of claims (claims 1-5, claims 21
and 23-25, claims 26-29, claim 33 and claims 38-40), appellants
presented the same arguments. Accordingly, we are able to determine
the issues for each of these claims based on the analysis presented
above.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007