Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
Claim 27 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amemiya in
view of Savage.
The Examiner adds Savage to Amemiya, applied above, to reject the subject matter of
claim 27. The Examiner states “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at to have incorporated a plasma etch endpoint detection system such as that of Savage in
the plasma apparatus of Amemiya for the advantages of automatic control of the etch[ing]
process parameters such as the gas flow as taught by Savage.” (Examiner’s Answer, page 5,
first paragraph). Claim 27 is a dependent claim which include the limitations of claim 26.
The inclusion of an endpoint detection system would not have led to the claimed invention
because the substitution of the endpoint detection system does not address the deficiencies
of Amemiya stated above.
Claim 27 has been rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maher in
view of Savage or Otsubo.
The Examiner adds Savage and/or Otsubo to Maher, applied above, to reject the
subject matter of claim 27. The Examiner asserts it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at to have incorporated a plasma endpoint detection system such as
that of Savage or Otsubo in the system of Maher. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, line 8 to
page 6 line 7). The inclusion of an endpoint detection system would not have led to the
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007