Appeal No. 2002-2223
Application No. 09/475,891
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the anti-reflective layer can be
etched with a wet etch or gas mixture containing CF4.
Appellant argues the use of the teachings of Maniar would frustrate the
purpose of Lee. (Brief, p. 4). We do not agree. As stated above, the use of an anti-
reflective coating would alleviate problems associated with reflectance. A skilled
artisan performing the invention of Lee would have recognized that the
anti-reflective coating is suitable for etching processes.
Appellant argues that Lee is directed to a reactive ion etch in a CF4 free
environment and that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Lee and Maniar because Lee teaches away from prior art
which uses CF4. (Brief, pp. 4-5). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Lee does not disclose that it is desirable to exclude CF4 from the etching process.
Simply because Lee describes an etching gas mixture that does not include CF4 does
not mean that using CF4 would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.
A prior art reference must be considered together with the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. A reference need not explain every detail since it
is speaking to those skilled in the art. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007