Appeal No. 2000-1112
Application No. 08/518,363
disadvantage of being complex and not improving the accuracy of
all existing steppers. Again, this is not a teaching away, but
rather a suggestion that the benefits and drawbacks must be
weighed against each other for any given application.
Accordingly, contrary to appellant's arguments (Reply Brief,
page 2), the disclosures of Muraki (and, thus, of Shiozawa I and
II and Suzuki) and of Burggraaf are not "persuasive evidence that
one of skill in the art . . . would have been lead away from the
use of a phase shifting mask," but rather evidence that phase
shifting masks are beneficial in certain situations as long as
one can tolerate the disclosed drawbacks. Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 59, and 62 through 64 over
Muraki in view of Burggraaf.
In addition, since the disclosures of Shiozawa I and II and
Suzuki are the same as Muraki with regard to the use of a phase
shifting mask, the same analysis provided above applies to the
rejections of the claims over each of the three additional
references in view of Burggraaf. Accordingly, we will affirm the
rejections of claims 1, 59, and 62 through 64 over Shiozawa I and
II in view of Burggraaf and also of claims 1, 59, 62 through 64,
and 68 over Suzuki in view of Burggraaf.
CONCLUSION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007