Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
With respect to this distinction, the Examiner proffers the
Yew and Vossen references as evidence that it was known in this art
to provide isolation layers (i.e., to fill isolation trenches) via
a high density plasma deposition process (e.g., see the paragraph
bridging columns 2 and 3 of Yew) and that it was known in this art
to effect plasma deposition via a process which is biased (see page
54 of Vossen). Thus, it is the Examiner’s basic position that it
would have been obvious for one having an ordinary level of skill
in the art to effectuate the filling step of Park via a biased high
density plasma deposition process in view of Yew and Vossen. In
this manner, Park’s filling step would have been achieved by way of
a process evinced by Yew and Vossen to be known in the prior art as
effective for this purpose.
The Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner does not provide any
objective motivation for modifying Park with Yew and Vossen to fill
the isolation trenches with an oxide utilizing a biased high
density plasma deposition process” (brief, page 8). This argument
lacks discernable merit. The motivation in question arises from
the simple fact that a specific process would have been required in
order for an artisan to practice Park’s filling step, and the Yew
and Vossen references evince that a biased high density plasma
deposition process of the type here claimed was recognized in the
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007