Appeal No.2003-2001
Application No. 09/345,173
independent claim 1, appealed claim 19 requires an HF dip,
descumming and a breakthrough etch, albeit with a substrate
having a second polysilicon layer thereon. For the reasons
discussed above, the examiner has not met the burden of
furnishing a reasonable evidentiary basis and analysis based
thereon that explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify the process of Chung to include all of
the steps as required by appealed claim 19.
It follows that we will not sustain any of the examiner’s
rejections on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-11 and 13-16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chung in view
of Cher; to reject claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chung in view of Cher and Chen; to reject
claims 8, 13-16, 19, 20 and 22 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chung in view of Cher and alleged admitted
prior art in appellants’ specification; and to reject claims 12
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chung
in view of Cher and Vogel is reversed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007