Appeal No. 2002-0453
Serial No. 08/686,229
then there would be ‘+values’ as well as ‘-values’ i.e.
deviations, just as the recitation of Schoenborn stated” (answer,
page 5). The examiner is incorrect because, as explained by the
appellants (reply brief, page 4), the etch rate of an etching
process having a particular etch rate and an etch rate uniformity
of ±3.8% would vary between a positive deviation 3.8% above the
etch rate and a negative deviation 3.8% below the etch rate.
The examiner points out that Schoenborn’s claim 12 recites
“determining a uniformity ‘u’ of the film subsequent to etching”,
and argues that “the ‘uniformity of film subsequent to etching’
of Schoenborn ‘356 is identical to the uniformity of a wafer as a
result of an etching process as the instant claims” (answer,
page 6). The symbol for uniformity in claim 12, i.e., “u”, is
defined as “uniformity of etch rate E” (col. 4, line 44).
Moreover, the formula in claim 12 for calculating u is the same
as that for calculating etch rate uniformity (col. 12, lines 6-
7). Thus, it is clear that the uniformity recited in claim 12 is
the etch rate uniformity, not the film thickness uniformity. An
additional indication that the uniformity in Schoenborn’s
claim 12 is etch rate uniformity is the declaration of Sarfaty
(filed February 29, 2000, paper no. 21) wherein Sarfaty states
that “[t]here is no discussion in the patent [Schoenborn] that
explicitly describes how a film uniformity would be derived from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007