Appeal No. 2006-2050
Application No. 10/045,913
W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 1, 15, 26, and 29, the Examiner
attempts to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Shiozawa. In particular, the
Examiner (Answer, pages 3-5) points to the illustrations in Figures 2-9 of Shiozawa along
with the accompanying description beginning at column 9, line 50.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has not shown how
each of the claimed features is present in the disclosure of Shiozawa so as to establish a
case of anticipation. In particular, Appellants contend (Supplemental Brief, pages 4-6;
Reply Brief, pages 2 and 3) that, in contrast to the claimed invention, the oxide film layer
component 8 of the insulator trench liner in Shiozawa, which is subject to Shiozawa’s
etching step, is not grown but, instead, is deposited by chemical vapor deposition (CVD).
According to Appellants (id.), the Examiner has provided inadequate support for the
asserted conclusion that the forming by deposition of the oxide trench liner 8 in Shiozawa
can be reasonably interpreted as a formation by growing as claimed.
After reviewing the Shiozawa reference in light of the arguments of record, we
are in general agreement with Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs. We find
compelling the evidence presented by Appellants, in particular the excerpt from the Wolf
and Tauber semiconductor processing reference book, which supports Appellants’
position that the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize and appreciate that the terms
“growing” and “depositing” have distinct meanings in the semiconductor processing art.
Further, as argued by Appellants (Supplemental Brief, page 6), the specification
treats the terms “growing” and “depositing” differently. When describing the formation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007