Appeal No. 2005-2239
Application No. 10/448,905
that carbon monoxide gas is present in the systems of Halman and
Blalock.
Appellants further argue that Halman and Blalock teach two
different etching systems and thus, there is no suggestion or
motivation to combine these two references. (Brief, p. 15). We
do not agree.
Both Halman and Blalock are directed to etching silicon
dioxide with the cited plasma gases. Thus, one of ordinary
skill in the art would reasonably expect that the combination of
CHF3 and CH2F2 could be used together for the etching of silicon
dioxide.
Appellants’ argument regarding the Examiner’s use of
hindsight is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 35 have been noted.
However, we agree with the Examiner’s position stated on pages 7
and 8 of the Answer.
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Reply Brief have
been fully considered. These arguments are essentially the same
as those that were presented in the principal Brief. As such,
these arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth
above and in the Answer.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007