Appeal No. 1998-2405
Application 08/351,093
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over the claims of Iwasaki in view of
Franke.2
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only claim 1, which is the sole independent claim.
Rejection over Franke in view of Nakagawa and Ozaki
Franke discloses a method for dry etching GaAs in
chlorine-containing ambients using an amorphous carbon mask
(col. 2, lines 17-22). Franke teaches that the mask material
can be applied by a number of techniques including ion plating
(col. 2, lines 39-48), but does not disclose applying the mask
material by spraying an organic compound vapor onto a surface
while scanning the surface with a focused ion beam. In an
example, after the mask has been patterned, the GaAs is etched
using ion beam assisted etching (col. 1, lines 42-44; col. 4,
lines 27-31).
Nakagawa discloses applying a patterned film by scanning
2Rejections of claims 1-4 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
and 103 over Tanemura are withdrawn in the examiner’s answer
(page 2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007