Appeal No. 2006-3039
Application No. 10/751,141
contour hardly forms a hollow space that would reasonably constitute a cavity given the
plain meaning of the term.
Furthermore, we disagree with the examiner’s suggestion that the combination of
the isolation regions and the oxide layers that are adjacent to the isolation regions
somehow forms a cavity in the isolation oxide regions. Although oxide layers 160, 510
are directly adjacent to isolation structures 150, 810 we fail to see how such a combined
structure reasonably constitutes a cavity formed in the isolation oxide region as claimed.
As appellants indicate, the isolation structures of Michejda are formed within
trenches in the semiconductor substrate into which polysilicon material is deposited.
Claim 12, however, specifically calls for disposing polysilicon material within cavities
formed in the isolation oxide region. In essence, the claim requires disposing polysilicon
material within a hollow space within the isolation oxide region. Even if we construe the
trenches formed in the semiconductor substrate of Michejda as cavities, at best, the
reference merely teaches depositing polysilicon material in cavities formed in the
semiconductor substrate – not in the isolation oxide region as claimed.
For the above reasons, Michejda does not expressly or inherently disclose all
limitations of claim 12. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation
rejection of that claim.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Michejda in view of Tsuchiaki. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007