Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
Claims 28 and 29 ) Barber, Erie, Kim, and Balda
Appellants argue that Balda uses a dry etch through an
organic polyimide layer down to a silicon nitride protective
layer, whereas the claims recite an inorganic silicon dioxide
layer over a silicon nitride layer (Br21). It is argued that
high selectivity is easier to obtain between organic and
inorganic materials than between two organic materials such as
silicon oxide and silicon nitride and, thus, the dry etch of
Balda would not work with the materials required of the present
invention (Br21-22).
These arguments are not directed to the limitations of
claims 28 or 29. Balda is not relied on for the teachings of the
material for the layers as recited in claim 21. Erie teaches a
silicon dioxide layer over an etch stop layer and also teaches
avoidance of sputtering.
Appellants argue that Balda does not discuss metal
sputtering and does not overcome the deficiencies of Barber,
Erie, and Kim (Br22).
This argument does not address the separate patentability of
claims 28 and 29, but basically argues that Balda does not
overcome the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 21 and, so,
the rejection of claims 28 and 29 should be reversed because they
depend on claim 21. This argument is not persuasive because we
- 25 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007