Appeal No. 2005-2239
Application No. 10/448,905
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37, and
38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Halman and Blalock.7 We affirm.
The Examiner has determined that Halman discloses a method
for plasma etching wherein a mixture of reacting gases
containing, inter alia, CHF3 and CH2F2 can be used. The Examiner
has cited the Blalock reference as evidence that the use of CHF3
and CH2F2 together in plasma etching was known by those of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue that the combination of Halman and Blalock
would not produce a gas plasma that is devoid of carbon monoxide
gas. (Brief, pp. 14-15). This argument is not persuasive for
the reasons discussed above in the Section 102 rejections. That
is, Appellants have not directed us to any evidence to show that
gases identified in the cited references necessarily include
carbon monoxide gas. Thus, Appellants have not demonstrated
7For this ground of rejection, Appellants have presented
separate arguments for claims 1 and 35. The discussion of claim
21 on page 16 of the principal Brief is the same as the arguments
presented for claim 1. Thus, for this ground of rejection we
will limit our discussion to claims 1 and 35.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007