Appeal No. 2003-2097
Application No. 09/247,926 Page 9
Although Sandhu is directed to etching of contact openings
through insulating dielectric layers to contacts on a wafer that
is positioned at varying elevations (col. 1, lines 16-19), and
discloses (col. 6, lines 16-19) that the invention protects the
material at the higher bases of the contacts from further
etching, and further discloses that the etching is stopped before
the source/drain (active) regions 16a, 16b are reached (col. 4,
lines 9-11), we find that the etching is stopped before the
source/drain regions are reached, in order to protect the high
contact elevations and not to protect the source/drain regions.
Although the stopping of the etching at a point where insulation
remains above the source/drain (active areas) is similar to the
step performed by appellant, we find that this general teaching,
because it for a different purpose, is not sufficient to suggest
the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the APA in
the manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
limitations stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellant’s own disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge
to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of
course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and Assocs.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007