Appeal No. 95-3438
Application No. 08/033,656
The appealed claims stand rejected for obviousness
(35 U.S.C. § 103) over Chiang in view of Morosanu and
Schuegraf. The appealed claims also stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, “enablement requirement.”
Claim 5 additionally stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. We cannot sustain the stated rejections.
THE REJECTION FOR OBVIOUSNESS
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter,
the examiner relies on the combined teachings of Chiang,
Morosanu and Schuegraf. Like the claimed method, Chiang
discloses a method for forming silicon nitride films on a
substrate (i.e., a silicon semiconductor wafer) using a low
pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) technique.
However, to achieve thickness uniformity of a deposited
silicon nitride film (column 5, lines 11 through 22), Chiang
evacuates the reactor chamber to a pressure in the range of
0.2 to 1 Torr (column 4, lines 41 through 46), as contrasted
to the claimed method (appealed claim 1) wherein the pressure
is adjusted to “about 5 to about 100 Torr.” Recognizing this
deficiency in the Chiang disclosure, the examiner has cited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007