Appeal No. 2001-1700 Page 4
Application No. 09/160,964
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner,
we find ourselves in agreement with appellants in so far as
the examiner has failed to carry the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785, 787-788
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection. Our reasoning follows.
We note that all of the claims on appeal require a method
that includes a step of rounding (such as by isotropic
etching) sharp edges formed at a semiconductor wafer device
surface at the location where substantially vertical sidewalls
of a groove formed by anisotropic etching meet that surface.
The examiner (answer, page 4) acknowledges that Peng does not
teach such a step. According to the examiner (answer, page
4),
In a method for semiconductor device
fabrication, Farnworth teaches that the protective
layer may be formed with rounded edge to avoid
damage to the protective layer or electrical
connectors (column 5, lines 1-9). Hence, one
skilled in the art at the time of the invention
would have found it obvious to modify Peng by using
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007