Appeal No. 2001-2503
Application No. 09/075,767
etching a portion of the anti-reflective layer and a portion of the first dielectric layer to
leave a remaining portion of the first dielectric layer overlying the fuse and to expose a portion
of the conductive layer, the anti-reflective layer having a first etch rate and the first dielectric
layer having a second etch rate, wherein the second etch rate is within 20 percent of the first etch
rate such that an etch selectivity of approximately 1:1 is achieved between the anti-reflective
layer and the first dielectric layer.
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Yamada et al. (Yamada) 4,984,054 Jan. 8, 1991
Chew et al. (Chew) 5,057,186 Oct. 15, 1991
Douglas 5,122,225 Jun. 16, 1992
Jolly 5,419,805 May 30, 1995
Tsukude et al. (Tsukude) 5,844,295 Dec. 1, 1998
According to the examiner (Answer, page 4), appellants’ admission (allegedly admitted prior art)
is in the “Background of the Invention” section set forth at pages 1 and 2 of the specification. 2
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 23-25 and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Tsukude, the admitted prior art, Jolly and Yamada.
2) Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 26, 27, 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Tsukude, the admitted prior art, Jolly, Yamada and Douglas.
3) Claims 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Tsukude, the admitted prior art and Jolly.
4) Claims 19, 20, 38 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Tsukude, the admitted prior art, Jolly and Douglas.
5) Claims 42 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
Tsukude, the admitted prior art, Jolly and Chew.
2 Appellants have not referred to the subject matter in the “Background of the Invention” section of the specification
as “prior art”. Nor have appellants admitted in the specification that such subject matter is “prior art”. We find no
unequivocal admission on the part of appellants in the specification. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571, 184
U.S.P.Q. 603, 611-12 (CCPA 1975) .
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007