Appeal No. 2002-0702
Application No. 09/711,324
undoped silicon dioxide1. An example of the aforementioned
component is C2H4F2. This appealed subject matter is adequately
illustrated by independent claims 1 and 20 (i.e., the only
independent claims on appeal) which read as follows:
1. A dry etchant, comprising a component with the
general formula C2HxFy, where x is an integer from 3 to
5, inclusive, y is an integer from 1 to 3, inclusive,
and x + y = 6, said dry etchant being formulated to
etch doped silicon dioxide with selectivity over at
least undoped silicon dioxide.
20. A dry etchant comprising a component with the
general formula C2HxFy, where x is an integer from 3 to
5, inclusive, y is an integer from 1 to 3, inclusive,
and x + y = 6, said dry etchant being formulated to
etch doped silicon dioxide at a faster rate than at
least undoped silicon dioxide.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Bosch et al. (Bosch) 5,626,716 May 06, 1997
Ding et al. (Ding) 5,814,563 Sep. 29, 1998
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ding in view of Bosch.2
1 As indicated on page 2 of the brief, the subject appeal is related to
appeal no. 2001-2244 of appellants’ application SN 09/625,144. The pivotal
issues of these respective appeals are distinct. Therefore, the disposition
of the related appeal is not determinative of the disposition of the subject
appeal.
2 On page four of the brief, the appellants indicate that the appealed
claims will stand or fall together. As a consequence, we will focus on the
independent claims before us in assessing the merits of the above-noted
rejection. See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7)(2001).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007