Appeal No. 2001-2146
Application No. 09/270,588
layer, 110 and a Kodak 820 positive resist layer 115. See Figure 2B. The examiner should
consider whether the first photoresist layer 110 functions as a target layer within the meaning
of the claimed subject matter, as Figure 2C and column 6, lines 10-18 requires processing
the second photoresist layer, leaving the first photoresist layer, the target underneath
(PMMA) intact and initially utilizing only the second photoresist layer (115) as a mask layer.
Furthermore, a second UV treatment is utilized to treat and develop the 110 target
layer. See column 4, lines 16-35. As a result it appears that whatever remains of the
processed patterned positive resist layer 115 has been photo exposed as required by the
claimed subject matter. The examiner should determine as if the second exposure of layer
115, meets the requirements of “photo exposing the processed patterned photoresist layer”,
as required by claim 1. See column 6, lines 19-23.
We further find that subsequent to an isotropic plasma etch, the photoresist is stripped
with a solvent by immersion in acetone. See column 6, lines 29-34 and column 5, lines
34-44. Accordingly there is a disclosure of stripping the photoresist target layer utilizing both
a UV treatment and a solvent treatment of at least the photo exposed processed patterned
photoresist layer as required by claim 1.
APPROPRIATE ACTION
We remand this application to the examiner for action consistent with the above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007