Appeal No. 95-4115 Page 5
Application No. 07/932,714
reticle using a silicon dioxide phase shifter made with a
transparent film of a material such as silicon dioxide applied
via a sputtering technique or the like onto a substrate
(column 7, lines 30-37, and column 19, lines 59-64). In one of
the separate rejections, the examiner relies on Morrison and
in the other on JP-1236544 as admitted by appellant on pages 6
and 7 of the specification each for teaching liquid phase3
epitaxial growth to "selectively form silicon dioxide."
We agree with appellant that Morrison describes a liquid
phase epitaxial growth process as an optional method for
forming a silicon layer of a semiconductor (brief, pages 9 and
10 and reply brief, pages 2 and 3), not a silicon dioxide
layer over exposed portions of a chemically vapor deposited
thin film of silicon dioxide. Thus, from our perspective, it
is not clear how the combined teachings of Okamoto and
3We note that JP-1236544 is not listed on a Notice of
References Cited by Examiner (PTO-892), a Notice of Art Cited
by Applicant (PTO-1449) that was acknowledged by the examiner,
or listed separately in the examiner's answer as new prior art
(answer, page 2). In view of the above and the examiner's
reference to the specification at pages 6 and 7 for an
admission by appellant regarding JP-1236544 (answer, page 3),
our consideration of the new ground of rejection set forth at
pages 3 and 4 of the answer is based on appellant's admissions
in the carryover paragraph at pages 6 and 7 of the
specification as the applied secondary reference teaching.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007