Appeal No. 2002-0818
Application No. 09/075,854
(1) claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12-15, 17, 21-25, 27 and 28 over
Jain '854 in view of Wang '631;
(2) claims 3-6 and 18-20 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Nariani and Jain '056; and
(3) claims 11, 16, 26 and 29 over Jain '854 in view of
Wang '631 further in view of Wolf.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections for essentially the reasons set forth by appellants in
their principal and reply briefs on appeal.
We concur with appellants that Jain '854 and Wang '631 fail
to provide factual support for the legal conclusion that it would
have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to deposit a sacrificial layer over the gap fill oxide layer
with process parameters that results in the substantial etching
away of the angled facets of the oxide layer. As appreciated by
the examiner, Jain '854, at column 7, lines 34 et seq.,
specifically teaches that polish layer 40 is deposited in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007