Appeal No. 2002-0003
Application No. 09/056,794
polishing are interchangeable processes and relies on the teachings of Iijima to
evidence this interchangeability. Additionally, the examiner maintains that appellant’s
specification “hinted” of this well-known interchangeability of RIE and chemical
mechanical polishing to flatten conductive layers. Appellant disagrees with the
examiner’s conclusion. (See brief at page 5.) We agree with appellant and find that the
examiner’s conclusion is based upon speculation. While the examiner has referred to
the teachings in Iijima, we do not find these teachings to teach an interchangeability of
RIE and chemical mechanical polishing to flatten conductive layers as maintained by
the examiner. Therefore, we cannot agree with the examiner that Iijima would have
suggested the use of chemical mechanical polishing in place of the use of RIE to flatten
conductive layers as taught by Suwanai. Since Iijima does not remedy the deficiency in
Suwanai as admitted by the examiner, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of
independent claim 12 and its dependent claims 11,13 and 14. Similarly, we cannot
sustain the rejection of independent claims 15, 16 and 18 which contain similar
limitations and dependent claim 17.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007