Appeal No. 2000-1991
Application No. 08/587,417
times, and pad oxide and nitride thicknesses ranges are not
taught [by Aoyama].” However, relying on the case law (id. at
page 6), the examiner makes a wholesale statement of obviousness
in the rejection of these claims. The examiner asserts (id.)
that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize
. . . in order to prevent bird’s beak and prevent
defects . . . It would have been obvious to optimize
the RF power . . . It would have been obvious to choose
applicants pad oxide and nitride thickness . . . It
further would have been obvious to choose a larger pad
oxide thickness . . . while reducing bird’s beak
compared to the prior art processes also taught in
Aoyama . . . .”
Appellants respond in detail (brief at pages 22-32) to the
assertions made by the examiner. Appellants argue (id. at page
29) that “[a]dditionally, the Examiner cites In re Aller for the
proposition that optimization of process parameters is obvious.
Again, the citation provided by the Examiner is taken out of
context [footnotes omitted].” Appellants further advocate (id.
at page 31) that:
the Appellants have satisfied both of the Soni
prerequisites. The instant application describes
substantially improved results in that “[t]he bird’s
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007