Appeal No. 1998-2401
Application 08/286,106
deficiencies of the combination of Ehrlich and Jelks, we reverse
the rejection of claim 2.
IV. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Ehrlich and Pitts
The examiner states that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have used the build-up layers
formed by Ehrlich as an implantation mask because Pitts teaches
that build-up layers formed by dissociation of a gas under the
action of an energy beam can be used as implantation masks.
(answer, page 9). The examiner also states that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used
the build-up layer formed by Ehrlich as an oxidation mask
because oxidation masks are well known as taught by Pitts.
(answer, page 9).
We find that Pitts does not utilize a monolayer of adsorbed
molecules, as in the process of Ehrlich. Rather, substrate 30
is coated with a thin film 32 of aluminum metal. A rastered
electron beam is applied to the surface of the substrate to
deposit an enhanced film of oxide 34. A reactive ion etch of
the coated substrate removes the aluminum and exposes underlying
substrate areas 38 and the exposed substrate areas 38 may be
doped. See column 9, lines 7-25 of Pitts. See also Figures 5,
6 and 7 of Pitts. The examiner refers to column 2, lines 25-29
of Pitts for teaching that aluminum films have been used as
oxidation masks. (answer, page 9). However, we find that the
teachings of Pitts are in the context of coating a substrate
with a thin film of aluminum metal, and do not involve the steps
of forming a monolayer of adsorbed molecules, followed by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007