Appeal No. 2002-0702
Application No. 09/711,324
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning this rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 1-38 as being unpatentable over Ding in view
of Bosch.
As recognized by both the appellants and the examiner, Ding
discloses a dry etchant comprising a variety of components
including various fluorohydrocarbon gases such as C2H4F2 (e.g.,
see the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6) which falls within
the general formula defined by the independent claims on appeal.
Significantly, patentee also discloses CHF3 as one of his
fluorohydrocarbon gases and teaches that his etchant may comprise
mixtures of these fluorohydrocarbon gases (id.). This is
significant because a mixture of C2H4F2 and CHF3 corresponds to
the appellants’ claimed and disclosed dry etchant which possesses
the selectivity characteristic defined by appealed claims 1 and
20 (e.g., see page 8 of the subject specification as well as
dependent claims 11, 16, 28 and 35).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007