Appeal No. 2000-1587
Application 09/055,254
sense,” as mentioned in In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 163 USPQ
545 (CCPA 1969), may only be applied to analysis of the
evidence, rather than be a substitute for evidence. In re
Lee, 277 F.3d at 1345, 61 USPQ2d at 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
See Smiths Industries Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital Signs,
Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1421 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (Bozek’s reference to common knowledge “does not in and
of itself make it so” absent evidence of such knowledge).
Based on the findings above, we do not agree with the
Examiner that the method of making shallow trench isolation as
disclosed by Zheng in combination with the initial bake of the
SOG and the densification of the PECVD, as disclosed by Wolf 1
and Wolf 2, would result in the method of claim 1. In that
regard, while Zheng requires etching back of the oxide layer
and the SOG, the etch selectivity of SOG to the oxide is
specified as 1:1 which means equal etch rate instead of the
claimed higher etch rate for oxide compared to that of the
SOG. Consistent with Appellants’ arguments, baking of the SOG
as disclosed by Wolf 2 is merely used to “alleviate the
problem of resist etch-rate variability” when SOG is used,
which has a less variable etch-rate. Additionally, Wolf 2
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007