Appeal No. 95-4663
Application 08/044,487
with respect to a PAC/novolak resists, Lamola indicates that the
chemistry for the deep ultraviolet lithography systems is quite
different. As set forth at page 57 of Lamola, chemically
amplified resists as described therein ?are no more difficult to
process than PAC/novolak resists; they are simply different.?
In light of the above, appellants argue, and we agree, that
it is logically inconsistent to assert that one of ordinary skill
in this art would modify Uetani’s positive photoresist
composition by using the dissolution inhibitor generally
described by Lamola. Alternatively, if one looks at Lamola as
the ?primary reference?, Lamola ?teaches away? from the use of the
alkali-soluble novolak resins such as the specific novolak resin
described by Uetani. Since we find no disclosure in Renner which
remedies the basic deficiencies in the stated rejection, we are
constrained to reverse the rejection.
For the reasons stated above, we agree with appellant that a
prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for the
subject matter defined by the claims on appeal based on the
relied upon references. This being the case, we do not find it
necessary to further consider the comparative data of record
found at pages 23 through 27 of the present specification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007