Appeal No. 2003-0512
Application 09/184,805
precisely remove the filler layer from the stop layer” (answer,
page 3). In response to appellants’ argument in the main brief
questioning the examiner’s finding that Landers discloses
polishing with a first slurry until the layer 18 is only
partially exposed, the examiner states the following:
Landers does indeed disclose that the layer 18 is
partially covered and partially exposed after the first
polishing step. In support of the Examiner’s position,
attention is directed to figures 1-3 of Landers.
Figure 1 illustrates a layer 10, succeeded by a layer
12, and then succeeded further by a layer 14. Figure 2
clearly illustrates that after polishing, layer 12 is
partially exposed and partially covered by the remains
of layer 10 in the trench. This meets the broad
independent claim[s] that Appellant[s] set forth.
[Answer, page 4.]
We have carefully considered the examiner’s findings of fact
and conclusions of obviousness and have concluded that they are
not well founded. First, it is not apparent to us that the
modification of Cadien proposed by the examiner, namely,
“[polishing] the filler layer [308] of Cadien with multiple
slurries . . . to more precisely remove the filler layer [308]
from the stop layer [306, 305, and/or 302]” (answer, page 3),
would result in the claimed step of polishing the filler layer
with a first slurry until the stop layer is partially covered by
the filler layer and partially exposed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007