Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
We agree with appellants’ position. Since Fukunaga does not
cure the deficiencies of Aoyama, the combination of Aoyama and
Fukunaga cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 23-25.
Aoyama, Fukunaga, Chang and Shan, or, Aoyama, Fukunaga and
Dahm
In rejecting claims 7, 13-16, 18, 20 and 21 over this ground
of rejection (answer at pages 8 and 9), the examiner uses Chang
for the teaching of C F /CHF being a well known etchant for2 6 3
silicon oxide, Shan for showing that oxygen is used in
combination with fluorocarbons to etch silicon, and that Dahm
teaches oxygen and C F or CHF may be used as etchants for2 6 3
silicon layers. Since none of these references, adding to the
teaching of Aoyama, cure the deficiency of Aoyama noted above
regarding the various thicknesses and the slope of the incline,
the rejection of these claims under this ground is not sustained.
Aoyama, Fukunaga, Chang and Shan, or, Aoyama, Fukunaga and
Dahm, each combination with the addition of Wolf
The examiner rejects claim 17 (answer at page 9) by
employing the wet etching teaching of Wolf to the teachings of
the combination of Aoyama, Fukunaga, Chang, and Shan or the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007