Appeal No. 1998-3000
Application No. 08/485,412
Although we agree with the examiner’s assessment of the
respective individual teachings of both Schoch and Tanaka, we
nevertheless agree with appellants (Brief, page 6) that:
The combination of Schoch and Tanaka is not only
improper, it does not teach as the Examiner has
suggested. First, the Schoch reference involves the
conversion of a material from a substantially non-
conductive state to a conductive state by the use of
ion radiation. Tanaka, on the other hand, involves
the conversion of a photoresist layer from a more or
less soluble state based on impinging energy. It
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine these two references because
one skilled in the art of semiconductor
interconnects is not skilled in the art of
photoresist and one skilled in the art of
photoresist is not skilled in the art of
semiconductor interconnects.
Second, Tanaka does not equate ion radiation to
electromagnetic radiation. Tanaka merely states[1]
that photoresist can be developed using various
mechanisms, which includes “all high-energy
radiations including ultraviolet light, deep-
ultraviolet light, electron beams and X-rays.” See
U.S. Patent Number 5,100,762, column 1, lines 67-68.
The act of making photoresist more or less soluble
is clearly not the same as making a material more
conductive. These involve different phenomena and
therefore should not be equated.
The obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 7, 9
1According to appellants (specification, page 51), ions
are made of particle radiation as opposed to photon or
electromagnetic radiation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007