Appeal No. 94-1889
Application 07/890,003
is intended to mean. Also, the examiner does not explain why any
such expected and predictable results, in combination with the
references relied upon by the examiner, would have motivated one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the
references such that a mask is made which has phase-shifting
material on both sides of a substrate.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
his burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
appellant=s claimed invention over Okamoto and Levenson. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 over these references.
Rejection over Shigetomi in view of Okamoto
Shigetomi discloses a phase-shifting mask which has a U-
shaped section cut out of the substrate on the side opposite to
each phase-shifting portion so that the intensity of light
through the phase-shifting portion and substrate is that same as
that through the substrate alone in places where there is no
phase-shifting portion (page 1).
The examiner argues (answer, page 3):
Shigetomi teaches that the shifter on the Abackside@ of
the substrate is a trench cut into the substrate that
acts as a phase shift portion. It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
same type of phase shift portions because of the equal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007