Appeal No. 96-0386
Application No. 08/270,082
substrate, obviates the need for any such substrate damage
proof dry etch chemical. Since we are of the view that the
prior art applied by the Examiner does not support the
reaction, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 15. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10-14.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the Examiner adds
Johnson to the combination of Suehiro and Pinto solely to meet
the "non-gold" ohmic metal layer limitation. Johnson,
however, does not overcome the innate deficiencies of the
combination of Suehiro and Pinto and, therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
note that, although Johnson was not applied against
independent claim 1, the Examiner refers to a passage at col.
2, lines 51-55 which describes the exposure of a III-V
compound substrate to an SF plasma as suggesting a motivation
6
for the use of an SF etchant on a III-V substrate. In
6
response, Appellants have provided an analysis at pages 10 and
11 of the Brief which supports their contention that the
surface treatment described by Johnson can not be equated with
the etch process claimed by Appellants and, therefore, could
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007