Appeal No. 2001-2244
Application No. 09/625,144
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Bosch et al. (Bosch) 5,626,716 May 06, 1997
Ding et al. (Ding) 5,814,563 Sep. 29, 1998
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 13 and 18 to 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Bosch and Ding. (Answer, p . 3).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejection of claims 1 to 13
and 18 to 27 is not well founded. Our reasons appear below.
Bosch discloses a dry etching process that is primarily designed to etch a layer of a
doped oxide of silicon, such as a boron-phosphorus doped silicate glass (BPSG) or
BPTEOS, not only more readily than the undoped form, but also more readily than silicon
nitride. Bosch employs an improved gaseous medium for plasma etching. Specifically,
Bosch employs a mixture of CHF3 (Freon 23) and neon (Ne), preferably in the ratio by
volume of about eight parts neon to 1 part Freon 23 as the gaseous medium. (Col. 2, ll. 34 to
44). Bosch discloses that developing plasma etching process is unpredictable.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007