Appeal No. 2000-1846
Application No. 08/709,879
the appealed claims. However, Kihara, which also discloses a
chemical amplification resist, discloses, as acknowledged in
appellants’ declaration of November 10, 1998, the alkali soluble
polyphenol polymer recited in the appealed claims (see polymer n
at column 25). Accordingly, since Murata teaches that the alkali
soluble polymer of the resist “may be any resin which is soluble
in an alkali developing solution” (page 3, lines 10-11), such as
polyphenol polymers, we concur with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to employ
the particular polyphenol of Kihara’s chemical resist as the
alkali soluble polyphenol in Murata’s chemical amplification
resist especially since Kihara suggests the molar resins for
controlling dissolution rate. (column 10, lines 10-19).
We are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments that the
inventions of Murata and Kihara are from non-analogous arts.
Murata and Kihara are more closely related then merely being
photoresist compositions, as urged by appellants. Rather, both
references are directed to the particular field of chemical
amplification resist which employ, like appellants’ composition,
a polymer obtained by protecting an alkali-soluble group of an
alkali-soluble polymer by a group which is unstable to an acid,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007