Appeal No. 2002-0498
Application No. 09/441,899
Cheung. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the stated combination
of references further in view of Wolf.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejections under § 103 for the reasons
set forth by appellants, particularly in the Reply Brief, which
we incorporate herein. We add the following for emphasis only.
We agree with appellants that Lin does not describe or
suggest the claimed step of selectively etching the silicon
oxynitride region which overlies the gate structure. Rather, Lin
describes etching sacrificial layer 106 which effects the removal
of silicon oxynitride region 108 (BARC layer). While Lin removes
the silicon oxynitride region, the removal is not accomplished by
selectively etching the silicon oxynitride.
It is the examiner's position that Lin describes an
alternate embodiment at column 4, lines 51-55, wherein Lin
discloses that the silicon oxynitride region 108, sacrificial
layer 106 and silicon layer 104 may be etched simultaneously or
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007