Appeal No. 2004-0574
Serial No. 09/259,145
the art to form a silicon nitride film (and a silicon oxynitride
film as required by the appellants’ claims 32 and 49) by plasma
enhanced CVD wherein a wafer is placed on a susceptor such that
its reverse surface is not exposed to the film-forming gas and,
therefore, is not covered by a deposited film.2
Thus, because Tada’s silicon nitride film is not disclosed
as being formed by low pressure CVD, the record does not indicate
that the silicon nitride film is unavoidably formed on the
reverse substrate surface as argued by the examiner. The
examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that
Tada’s silicon nitride film necessarily is formed by low pressure
CVD, or that one of ordinary skill in the art would have desired
to form on both substrate surfaces Tada’s silicon nitride film
which functions as a mask in the formation of field oxide on only
one of the substrate surfaces.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s rejections.3
2 See Wolf, supra note 2 at 176-80, 202-06 (citing
disclosures prior to Tada’s filing date).
3 The examiner does not rely upon Shim or Wolf for any
disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Tada
and Koike.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007