Appeal No. 1997-1140
Application No. 08/175,865
presumably were not performed in total darkness.
Appellant argues (Brief, p.5):
Regarding the Examiner's contention that
Appellant's claims do not require any specific light
source, Appellant disagrees as claim 23 requires
irradiating with "visible and/or ultraviolet energy
sufficient to produce directional etching of said
surface." . . . More importantly, page 2 of the
specification contains no teaching or suggestion of
lighting conditions and any corresponding effect on
CaF water etching . . . . Furthermore, neither of
2
the wet etch examples on page 2 provides directional
etching . . . .
The examiner fails to find appellant's arguments
persuasive since, according to the examiner, the specification
fails to define "directional." The examiner concludes that
since all etching proceeds in at least one direction, it would
be considered to be directional. See Answer, p.5. Contrary
to the examiner's position, the Specification defines
"directional" as follows (Specification, p. 9, lines 3-12):
It is important to note that the photo-
stimulated etching of CaF is a directional etch
2
process. Because the reaction is catalyzed to a
large extent by photo-exposure, areas not exposed to
photo-stimulation, such as those areas under a
photoresist mask, will not etch. This
directionality of etch is a major improvement over
conventional wet etches which undercut the mask,
making sharply delineated or very small structures
difficult, if not impossible, to define. Another
benefit of the photo-stimulated etching is that in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007