Appeal No. 2002-1415
Application No. 09/141,812
Claims 3, 13, and 15 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 16) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
15) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that appellants do not contest the rejections of claims 20
through 28, effectively withdrawing the appeal as to those claims. “Claims 20-28 will
not be the subject of this appeal brief.” (Brief at 2.) Accordingly, the appeal as to
claims 20 through 28 is dismissed.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 19, containing all the remaining independent
claims, have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of
Molloy and Savas. The rejection (Answer at 3-4) relies on Molloy as disclosing a
process for forming a via in an insulating layer so as to uncover a metal layer. Molloy
teaches that both a photoresist layer (col. 1, ll. 49-62) and photoresist residues that
may remain at via holes (col. 2, ll. 15-30) must be removed when etching vias in
integrated circuit devices. The rejection refers to column 4, lines 28 through 50 of
Molloy as teaching bombarding a wafer surface with a mixture of gases that may
include oxygen, but the reference is deemed to not disclose the mixing of ammonia with
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007