Appeal No. 2005-0520
Application 09/768,271
Brief, first paragraph). Appellant cites three references in
support of this proposition.1 Appellant maintains that rela-
tively thin gate oxides are formed under floating gates, and
appellant submits that “it should be understood that floating gate
electrodes in general are formed on relatively thin gate oxides,
as opposed to relatively thick field oxide layers” (page 7 of
Brief, first paragraph, emphasis added). Appellant reasons that
“one of ordinary skill should understand that floating gate 21 in
Figs. 2-7 of the Yoo et al. reference cannot be formed on FOX
layer 12 and be a functional floating gate” (page 8 of Brief,
second paragraph). Appellant then concludes that “[f]loating
gate 21 of the Yoo et al. reference is not specifically described
as formed on FOX layer 12" (page 8 of Brief, last paragraph).
It is well settled that the presumption of validity
attaching to the claims and supporting disclosure of a U.S.
patent is substantial, and an applicant carries a heavy burden
proving that a U.S. patent is inoperative or non-enabling. See
In re Weber, 405 F.2d 1403, 1407, 160 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1969);
1 I.E.E.E. Electron Device Letters by Haddad; U.S. Patent
4,637,128; and Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era, Volume 2:
Process Integration.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007