Appeal No. 2006-1181
Application No. 10/393,718
Appellants argue that Wristers teaches away from the claimed
invention by introducing the isolation layer to a high-pressure
nitrogen environment which is different from the claimed plasma
nitridization (brief, page 5). Appellants further assert that
the resulting structures, as manifested by the nitrogen profiles
and depicted in Figures 5 and 6 of Wristers, differ from
Appellants’ Figure 8 in having a sharp peak concentration
profile, in their extent in the isolation layer and concentration
uniformity (brief, pages 5-8).
In response, the Examiner disagrees with Appellants’
arguments (brief, page 5) that Wristers teaches away from the
claimed invention and indicates that the argued processing steps
and the resulting nitrogen profile are not recited in the claims
(answer, page 6). We agree with the Examiner that the claims
merely require that nitrogen be introduced into the isolation
layer and shift the threshold voltage by a pre-selected amount
that corresponds to the concentration of nitrogen. As pointed
out by the Examiner, the specific argued features cannot be
included in the broad recitation of shifting the threshold
voltage as a result of introducing nitrogen.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007