Appeal No. 2005-0287 Page 19
Application No. 09/216,214
appellant’s arguments with respect to forming an increased
dielectric thickness at the gate corners (a bird’s beak or
acknowledged conventional smiling oxidation formation) persuasive
of a patentable distinction over the combined teachings of the
applied references.
Having reconsidered the evidence of record for and against a
conclusion of obviousness in light of the respective arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner, it is our determination
that, on balance, the evidence weighs most heavily in favor of an
obviousness conclusion with respect to the rejection under
consideration.
It follows that we will affirm the examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as lacking written descriptive
support in the application, as filed is reversed. The decision
of the examiner to reject claims 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22,
24, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Arai in view of Watabe is affirmed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007