Appeal No. 2003-1366
Application No. 09/488,075 Page 4
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223
USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejections.
Masakara and Gnade are generally directed to the manufacture
of highly porous dielectric films on semiconductor substrates.
Both Masakara and Gnade disclose the optional use of surface
modifiers, such as trimethylchlorosilane (TMCS), to help impart
desirable properties, such as hydrophobicity, to the film.
The examiner has determined that “Masakara and Gnade fail to
disclose that the surface modification agent is an oligomer or
polymer reactive with silinols (sic) on the silica film” (answer,
page 3), a feature required by all of appellants’ claims. In
order to make up for that acknowledged deficiency in the
teachings of Masakara or Gnade relative to the here claimed
subject matter, the examiner turns to Kotelnikov. In this
regard, the examiner (answer, page 3) asserts that:
Kotelnikov et al. disclose a method of producing
hydrophobic silica coatings by chemical modification
reactions with oligomer or polymer silicon-containing
compounds.
Therefore, given the substantial teachings of
Masakara et al. and Gnade et al. in view of Kotelnikov
et al., it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007