Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
trenches. However, by combining Park with Yew,
the nitride layer 114 in Park would be replaced
with a first isolation layer comprising silicon
oxide. Since an isolation layer of silicon
oxide would be formed on the thermal oxide
layer 112 in Park, oxidation of the trench
interior walls would not be prevented in the
subsequent oxidation process in Park. That is,
by combining Park with Yew, the principle of
operation in Park would change and subsequently
render the operation of Park to perform its
purpose unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Examiner
has not presented a prima facie case of
obviousness for rejecting claims 1-3, 6 and 8-
9.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, his rejection does not
propose combining Park with Yew in the aforequoted manner, and the
teachings of these references do not support such a combination.
Indeed, an artisan would have been discouraged from combining these
references in the manner discussed by the Appellants precisely
because the resulting combination would “render the operation of
Park to perform its purpose unsatisfactory” (id.).
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 as being unpatentable
over Park in view of Yew and Vossen.
We also will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
5 and 11 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yew and Vossen
and further in view of Wolf. Contrary to the Appellants’ apparent
belief, the artisan would have been motivated to deposit the
1010
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007