Appeal No. 1999-2115
Application No. 08/724,574
We cannot agree for reasons analogous to those given above
for rejections I through III. In particular, the examiner has
not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to use a reflowing step in Yu '534 when Yu '534 solves
the problem of planarization using selective CMP steps.
Moreover, Rao is concerned with smoothing the profile of the
interlevel dielectric over a patterned stack following an
etching step, as we discussed above. The examiner has not
pointed to any disclosure, suggestion, or motivation in the
prior art teachings that would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the references in the manner as suggested by
the examiner.
Under these circumstances, we also cannot uphold rejection
IV.
As to rejections V and VI, the examiner has relied on Tang
and Morimoto only for certain limitations recited in dependent
claims 13 and 14. Since the examiner has not explained how
these references overcome the fundamental deficiencies in the
proposed combination of Yu '534 and Rao, we reverse rejections V
and VI as well.
In summary, the examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
(i) claims 1 through 4, 6, and 8 as unpatentable over Yu '843 in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007