Appeal 2007-3669
Application 10/831,671
conventional mask could have been modified into a multi-section mask, or
how a multi-section mask would have been used (Br. 9-12).2
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The prior art cited
by the Examiner and the prior art cited in the present record establishes that
projection masks were known by persons of ordinary skill in the art to be
suitable for use in the field of laser annealing. Takaoka discloses a laser
annealing apparatus that uses a projection mask (18) having a mask or
aperture pattern (Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 52-58). However, Takaoka does not
describe the details of the projection mask. Tanabe discloses a
semiconductor thin film forming system for modifying a predetermined
region of a semiconductor thin film by exposing the semiconductor thin film
to a projected light through plural patterns formed on a photo mask (col. 7,
ll. 19-23). Tanabe describes the fabrication of masks including aperture
patterns and alignment marks in the discussion of Figs. 13A-13E (col. 15, ll.
33-50). These masks are used to project patterns on a substrate. Appellants’
discussion of the related art in the Specification reveals that patterned project
masks that are shadow masks were used in laser annealing technology (see
the discussion of U.S. Patent 6,322,625, Specification 2). A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to design masks used
in laser annealing processes to include the appropriate aperture pattern(s)
including alignment markings so that the resulting pattern on the
semiconductor substrate is suitable for the intended use.
2 Appellants have presented arguments directed to the shadow mask
component of the claimed system. Appellants have not argued that the
remaining components of this system were not known in the prior art. Thus,
we will limit our discussion to the shadow mask component.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013