Appeal No. 2003-0173
Application No. 09/484,473
THE REJECTION
Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Asselanis in view of Moore and Roh.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to address
only claim 8, which is the sole independent claim.
Asselanis discloses a method for etching “PLZT family”
materials, which are ceramic oxides containing two or more of
lead, lanthanum, zirconium and titanium (col. 1, lines 29-35).
The etching solution can contain NH4F and HCl in a range of
relative amounts (col. 2, line 50 - col. 3, line 5; col. 3,
lines 30-33; col. 3, line 66 - col. 4, line 7; col. 14, line
65 - col. 15, line 2). A substrate having a PLZT family film
thereon can, after sintering, be processed for semiconductor use
(col. 3, lines 48-51).
Moore discloses that in the manufacture of integrated
circuits, SiO2 can be etched using ammonium fluoride and HCl in
an aqueous base typically in a ratio of 4:1 to 20:1 (col. 3,
lines 44-56).2
2 The examiner does not address whether the applied prior
art would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the
art, the use of Moore’s HCl/NH4 to etch a silica layer of a
semiconductor device having a silica layer and a titanate layer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007