Appeal No. 2001-0397
Application 09/304,798
notably, appellants point out that Turner does not teach a
processing station for submersing a semiconductor device in a
bath having a basic solution.1 Id., page 6. Although Wolf
generally discloses techniques for submersing metals into baths
for the purpose of performing wet etchbacks, appellants note that
Wolf does not teach or suggest submersing a semiconductor device
into a basic solution for the purpose of eroding tungsten to form
a via hole. Id.
A proper analysis under § 103 requires, inter alia,
that the examiner consider two factors: (1) whether the prior
art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art
that they should make the claimed composition or device or carry
out the claimed process, and (2) whether the prior art would have
also revealed that in so making or carrying out, one of ordinary
skill would have a reasonable expectation of success. In re
Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
1Claims 10 and 21 are the sole independent claims. Claim 10
requires “a bath for submersing the pressure transducer structure
into a basic solution” and claim 21 requires “means for
submerging the pressure transducer structure in a basic
solution”.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007