Appeal No. 2006-0375
Application 10/447,581
§ 103(a). Indeed, none of the disclosures in Moise that teach the use of a fluorine-based plasma
etch on which the examiner relies, is the last etch step of the last layer on a semiconductor wafer
in the formation of an at least two layer material stack in which a hard mask is the top layer, or
otherwise constitute a step of etching a completed material stack on a semiconductor wafer. See
Moise, e.g., [0036] through [0040], [0063] through [0067], [0069], [0072] and [0088] through
[0106]; FIG. 2, particularly 204 through 216; FIG. 3b-c; and FIG. 4a-h.
On this record, we further agree with appellants that the secondary references coupled
with the primary reference would not have resulted in the claimed method. Indeed, the examiner
has relied on these references only “to teach removing contaminants from the wafer surface
using other conventional wet cleaning solutions” (answer, pages 8-9).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation and a prima facie case
of obviousness, we reverse the grounds of rejection on appeal.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Other Issues
A comparison of the appealed claims with such disclosure of Moise as that at, e.g.,
[0038] through [0040], [0069] and [0072], raises the issue with respect to § 103(a), whether one
of ordinary skill in this art would have substituted a fluorine-based plasma etch for the wet etch
process using fluorine or fluorine-chlorine chemistries followed by a wet clean step, which can
also etch the substrate, to clean a semiconductor wafer having a material stack. See B.F.
Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 1996) (“When obviousness is based on a particular prior art reference, there must be a
showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference. [Citation
omitted.] This suggestion or motivation need not be expressly stated. [Citation omitted.]”).
However, this issue has not been considered on the record and should be addressed by the
examiner upon further consideration of the appealed claims subsequent to the disposition of this
appeal.
We agree with the examiner that the objection to the “Figure 3” filed September 14,
2004, and the accompanying amendment to page 8 of the specification, filed October 8, 2004, as
3 See, e.g., “plasma etching,” McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1251
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007