Appeal No. 2001-0397
Application 09/304,798
that Wolf discloses a bath for submersing semiconductor devices
or articles into a solution for wet processing. Id. According
to the examiner, Wolf’s bath is capable of submersing a semi-
conductor device having tungsten into a basic solution to erode
tungsten and form a via hole. Id. The examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to have modified Turner using the
apparatus/system of Wolf in order to accomplish a multi-stage
fabrication. Id. The examiner maintains that the motivation to
have combined these prior art teachings is “the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id.,
page 6.
Appellants’ principal argument in traversing the
examiner’s rejection is that there is no teaching or suggestion
in either Turner or Wolf which would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined their teachings to
arrive at the claimed invention. See Appeal Brief, page 8.
In support of their contention, appellants identify several
differences between the teachings of Turner and Wolf. Most
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007