Appeal No. 1996-2702
Application No. 08/093,983
particularly relevant. This illustrated technique involves a
series of steps which form a window masking pattern in a
photoresist film by photolithography. Similarly, we find that
the teachings of Kameyama also provide a clear suggestion to the
skilled artisan for the use of photolithographic protective
masking techniques. In particular, the Figure 6c illustration
and accompanying description in Kameyama disclose the use of a
patterned photoresist layer 132A, 132B as a protective mask in
the etching of conductive layer 114 to form an opening over a
gate electrode. While Appellant is correct that Kameyama does
not disclose the precise manner of patterning this photoresist
layer, it is our view that the skilled artisan would appreciate
that the use of photoresist layers is an integral part of
applying photolithographic techniques for layer patterning.
As to Appellant’s contention that Gandhi and Kameyama do not
teach photolithographic patterning to form an opening over a gate
electrode, we would point out that these references are used in
combination with Taji to establish the basis for the obviousness
rejection. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007