Appeal No. 1998-2401
Application 08/286,106
II. The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 10-13, 17-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Ehrlich and Tamamura
The examiner states that it would have been obvious to use
the build-up layer pattern as an etch mask in a method similar
to Ehrlich's method, and to etch the structure in areas not
covered by the build-up layer pattern, to form pattern features,
because Tamamura teaches that it is known to use fine patterns
of build-up layers, formed by prenucleation of a substrate with
an energy beam, as etch masks. (answer, page 7).
With respect to claim 13, the examiner states that Tamamura
teaches to use build-up layers as a mask in order to dope a
substrate, and that therefore it would have been obvious to have
used the pattern formed in the method of Ehrlich, as an implant
mask because Tamamura teaches that it has been known to use
build-up layers, formed by prenucleation of a substrate with an
energy beam, as masks for implantation of a dopant. (answer,
page 8).
Appellants reiterate that Ehrlich is directed to a method
of forming metal lines using a maskless growth method, and that
this teaching away renders the combination unobvious. (brief,
page 5). Appellants also indicate that Tamamura is directed to
a method of forming a graft polymer film on an irradiated
pattern portion of a surface of a silicone layer overlying an
organic polymeric material layer. (brief, page 6).
The examiner rebuts, on page 11 of the answer, that both
Ehrlich and Tamamura form build-up layers. It therefore appears
again that the examiner finds that this similarity among each of
these references provides ample motivation to combine the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007