Appeal No. 2005-0585
Application No. 09/821,478
substitution of a hard mask, during the etching step (col. 2,
lines 8-12). Brief, page 8.
Appellant states that, in contrast, Ma is specifically
directed to reducing a power frequency in a plasma etch reactor
so that the plasma source power level may be increased which
provides complete residue removal and prevents etch microloading
(col. 3, lines 10-28). Appellant states that, thus, Tao and Ma
would not have been combined, absent hindsight. Brief, page 8.
Appellant also argues that Horak is specifically directed
to performing a reactive ion etching process which compensates
for a subsequent normal etching process, to prevent a
nested/isolated feature offset (col. 6, line 49-col. 7, line 2).
Appellant states that Ma teaches entirely avoiding any such
“profile microloading.” Appellant concludes that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to
modify the teachings of Ma with a reactive ion etching process
which compensates for a subsequent etching process, as disclosed
by Horak, because Ma discloses a method which entirely avoids
any such problem. Brief, pages 8-9.
Appellant also argues that the combination of applied
references does not teach or suggest each and every element of
the claimed invention. Brief, page 9.
Appellant argues that the present invention recites etching
a structure to correct an offset between isolated and nested
structures which were created by a lithographic process.
Appellant states that, in other words, his invention corrects
for the isolated/nested offset from a previous lithographic
formation, as opposed to correcting for any isolated-feature,
nested-feature offset, which would otherwise result from a
subsequent lithographic formation. Brief, page 9. Appellant
discusses his assertions as to why the applied references do not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007