Appeal No.2003-2001
Application No. 09/345,173
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejection that is
before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
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.
Independent claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom
require a hydrofluoric acid (HF) dip of a polysilicon layer to
remove surface oxides, an anisotropic descumming operation to
remove leftover resist material from a patterning operation on
the polysilicon layer, and a long anisotropic breakthrough etch.
Those steps are followed by etching the polysilicon layer during
the fabrication of an integrated circuit.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007