Appeal No. 2002-2223
Application No. 09/475,891
Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 934, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (It is
insufficient that the prior art disclosed the components of the patented device, either
separately or used in other combinations; there must be some teaching, suggestion,
or incentive to make the combination made by the inventor.); Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
The Examiner rejected claims 12 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Maniar. The Examiner has found that
Lee teaches a method for etching that differs from the claimed invention in the step
of etching an anti-reflective layer. To remedy this deficiency the Examiner relied on
Maniar. According to the Examiner, Maniar teaches that anti-reflective layers are
used over a polysilicon layer and under a resist. (Answer, p. 2). Maniar discloses
that the anti-reflective coating alleviates the problems associated with unwanted
reflectance of radiation during lithography operations. (Col. 4). Maniar further
discloses that the anti-reflective layer can be etched with a wet etch or gas mixture
containing CF4. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to include an anti-reflective layer in the semiconductor device of Lee in
order to alleviate the problems associated with unwanted reflectance. A person of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007