Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
portion thereof correspond to the presently claimed anti-
reflective layer and barrier layer, respectively. However, the
examiner has not effectively refuted appellants' position that
"Nagahisa does not disclose or suggest an anti-reflection layer"
(page 8 of Brief, first paragraph) because "[w]hereas an anti-
reflection coating for ultraviolet photolithography typically has
a thickness of less than approximately 500 angstroms, Nagahisa's
channel protective layer 133 has a thickness of approximately
3,000 angstroms (e.g., column 8, lines 53-55), which is far too
thick to provide an anti-reflective function" (page 8 of Brief,
third paragraph). In response to appellants' argument the
examiner states that "it is noted that the features upon which
applicant relies . . . are not recited in any of the process
claims under rejection" (page 5 of Answer, second paragraph).
Manifestly, the examiner's response misses the point. The
appealed claims specifically recite "an anti-reflective layer,"
and the examiner has not established, in the first instance, that
the channel protective film 133 of Nagahisa, having a thickness
of 3,000 angstroms, would have qualified as an anti-reflective
layer to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
the present application. The examiner has pointed to no teaching
in Nagahisa that the channel protective film 133 can serve as an
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007