Appeal 2007-2510
Application 10/389,456
1 16. Wang argues that the Examiner's alternative interpretation of the
2 teachings of Economikos is incorrect because "the mere fact that Claim 1 of
3 Economikos et al. does not positively recite the intervening nitride layer is
4 not the same as teaching or suggesting that the layer to be oxidized is in
5 contact with the substrate. If such an argument had merit, there would be no
6 limit to what Economikos et al. would teach." (Br. at 12; emphasis omitted.)
7 17. In response to Wang's arguments about the intervening silicon nitride
8 layer, the Examiner maintains that the broad claim interpretation is correct.
9 (Answer at 17.)
10 18. In response to Wang's arguments about the teachings to be had from
11 claim 1, the Examiner merely repeats his position without citing support
12 from the accompanying specification and without citation to the art.
13 (Answer at 17.)
14 19. In the Reply Brief ("Reply") filed 18 December 2006, Wang notes
15 that Economikos claim 1 uses the language, "partially filling said trench with
16 a first layer of silicon, so that the bottom of the trench is covered by said first
17 layer of silicon." (Reply at 5.)
18 20. Wang argues that the Examiner has improperly read the more
19 restrictive "in contact with" limitation of Wang's claims into the Economikos
20 claims. (Reply at 5.)
21 21. The Examiner makes numerous other specific findings as to the
22 descriptions of trench-making processes in Economikos. (Answer at 4–8.)
23 22. With the exceptions noted supra, Wang does not appear to dispute the
24 Examiner's other findings of fact as to the disclosures of Economikos, Van
25 Zant, Vossen, and the other references.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013