Appeal No. 1998-2401
Application 08/286,106
prenucleating portions of the adsorbed layer, followed by
selectively forming
build-up layers over the prenucleated portions, as in the
process of Ehrlich. The examiner has not provided a sufficient
explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to use the film formed according to Ehrlich, as
an etch mask or an oxidation mask according to the method
recited appellants' claims, in view of these differences between
the process of Ehrlich and the process of Pitts. The examiner
also has not provided a sufficient explanation of why one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that a
film formed according to Ehrlich would be effective as an etch
mask or an oxidation mask in view of the teachings of Pitts.
In this context, we agree with appellants' statements made on
page 6 of their brief. Hence, the examiner has not met his
initial burden of factually supporting a prima facie conclusion
of obviousness. Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ at 973 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1985).
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of
Ehrlich and Pitts.
V. The rejection of claims 13-16 over Ehrlich and Richman
The examiner states that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to implant or oxidize a portion of
the structure not covered by the metal mask in a method similar
to Ehrlich because Richman teaches that metal masks have been
used as implantation or oxidation masks. (answer, page 10).
The examiner further states that the motivation to combine
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007