Appeal No. 2005-0585
Application No. 09/821,478
With specific regard to appellant’s repeated and emphasized
argument that the claimed invention corrects offset from a
previous lithographic formation [emphasis added], and that the
applied art does not do so, we find that Horak discusses the
formation of a lithographic film (col. 7, lines 4-5) that is
subsequently subjected to a special etch (col. 7, lines 3-10).
Hence, Horak teaches etching a structure from a previous
lithographic formation. Hence, we agree with the examiner’s
statement, made on page 16 of the Answer, that the applied art
teaches every element of the claims.
We also add that Horak explains that “the amount of
lithographic film or other etch mask added” to a nested line
will decrease angle 2002 (depicted in Figure 10 of Horak).
Horak thus recognizes how offsets, created [emphasis added] by a
lithographic film, are formed. In this manner, the art has
recognized the need to compensate for an offset created by a
lithographic film or other etch mask.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Tao in view of Ma, and further view of Horak.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007