Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
prior art as effective for this purpose. To the extent that the
Appellants may dispute this last mentioned recognition, we
here emphasize that the admitted prior art descriptions by the
Appellants in their specification (see the paragraph bridging
pages 1 and 2, the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5, the first full
paragraph on page 5 and the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6), in
their drawing (see Figures 1A, 1B, 1C and 2) and in their brief
(see the first full paragraph on page 3) all reflect that a biased
high density plasma deposition process was known in the prior art
as an effective technique for filling isolation trenches with an
oxide.1
In further support of their position that the § 103 rejection
under review is improper, the Appellants advance the following
argument in the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12 of the brief:
Yew teaches a first isolation layer
comprising silicon oxide to partially fill the
trenches and a second isolation formed on the
first isolation to fill completely the
1 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art described by an
Applicant may be used in determining the patentability of a
claimed invention (see In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571-72, 184
USPQ 607, 611-12 (CCPA 1975)) and that consideration of the prior
art cited by the Examiner may include consideration of the
admitted prior art described by an Applicant (see In re Davis,
305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); compare In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007