Appeal No. 1998-2405
Application 08/351,093
the surface, irradiating the thin film with a focused electron
beam, and determining the thickness of the thin film based
upon the intensity of detected electrons or X-rays emitted
from the thin film as a result of the irradiation with the
electron beam.
The examiner argues that Franke teaches that addition of
reactive chlorinated species to a chamber during ion beam
etching was known in the art (answer, pages 8-9). The
examiner, however, has not established that the claims of
Iwasaki, in combination with Franke, would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the step
required by the appellants’ claims of spraying an etching gas
while irradiating the sprayed area with an ion beam. The
examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over the claims
of Iwasaki in view of Franke. Accordingly, we reverse the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4 and 9-
13 over Franke in view of Nakagawa and Ozaki, claims 1-4 and
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007