Appeal 2007-0706
Application 09/905,172
Hasegawa US 6,452,274 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 8 through 11, 13, 15 through 21, and 27 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Huang and Hasegawa;
2. Claims 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Huang, Hasegawa, and Tsai;
3. Claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Huang, Hasegawa, and Lou;
4. Claims 30, 31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Huang, Hasegawa, and
Chapman; and
5. Claims 14, 32, and 35 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Huang, Hasegawa, and either
Cheng or Chang and Chapman.
IV. ISSUE
Has the Examiner demonstrated that a person having ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ the CVD (chemical vapor deposition)
of the low dielectric organic material disclosed in Hasegawa as the low
dielectric organic material taught by Huang in Huang’s semiconductor
making process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
V. RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. The Examiner has found, and the Appellants have not disputed, that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013