Appeal No. 2006-1333
Application No. 10/347,849
Examiner directs attention (Answer, page 4) to the illustration in Venkatesan’s Figures 1A,
1B, and 3 as well as the disclosure at column 9, line 5 through column 10, line 36 of
Venkatesan.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that the
Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation.
The burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or
arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how
each of the claimed features are present in the disclosure of Venkatesan so as to establish
a case of anticipation. In particular, Appellants contend that, as required by claim 24, the
Examiner has not shown that Venkatesan discloses “depositing silicon into a hole having a
diameter of about 0.25 μm or smaller and an aspect ratio of 2:1 or greater, with the
deposition occurring at a rate of at least about 500 Å/minute and with greater than about
80% step coverage.” (Brief, page 6). According to Appellants (id.), Venkatesan indeed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007