Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
This feature argued by the examiner is a stated feature in the
abstract of the invention of Smith as well as one developed at
columns 1 and 2 of Smith.
There are, however, more compelling reasons for the combin-
ability of the references maintained within both references in a
complementary manner. The alternative embodiments heading at
the bottom of column 7 of Pease indicates its appropriateness to
masking utilizing masks appropriate to X-ray methodologies as
well as to the optical-light methodologies which are the basis
of the principal disclosure in Pease. In a complementary sense,
Smith’s teachings focus upon X-ray lithographic replication
approaches in most of the figures and columns. However, Figure
7 and the discussion beginning at column 5 to the end of this
patent focus upon optical and ultraviolet radiation approaches.
Note the discussion beginning at column 5, line 56 of Smith.
Thus, it is clear to us that the artisan would have considered
the teachings of Smith as applicable as an obvious enhancement
to those of Pease and vice-versa.
This combinability was necessary by the examiner to reach
the phase-shifting feature at the end of independent claim 7 on
appeal. Clearly, both embodiments of Smith teach that phase-
shifting is a normal part of the lithographic mask fabrication
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007