Appeal No. 2004-1741
Application No. 09/466,440
generated from a mixture of SF6, HBr, He, and a chlorine containing
gas.1
Appellant stipulates that all of the claims stand or fall
together (brief-page 3). Accordingly, we will limit our
consideration to claim 1, the first of four independent claims.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for selectively etching a substrate having a tungsten
silicide layer with a resist material on portions of the tungsten
silicide layer, the method comprising:
introducing a process gas comprising SF6, HBr, He, and a
chlorine containing gas onto the substrate, the volumetric flow
ratio of SF6:HBr ranging from about 1:0.95 to about 1:1.85, the
volumetric flow ratio of SF6:He ranging from about 1:3.95 to about
1:7.69; the volumetric flow ratio of SF6:chlorine containing gas
ranging from about 1:0.68 to about 1:1.46; and
generating a plasma to form an etch gas from the process gas,
wherein the etch gas selectively etches the tungsten silicide layer
on the substrate.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner on appeal
are:
Cheung et al. (Cheung) 5,354,417 Oct. 11, 1994
Kun-Yu et al. (Kun-Yu) 6,117,755 Sept. 12, 2000
1 The examiner asserts that the copy of the appealed claims
appearing in the Appendix to the brief is correct, the claims
appearing in the Appendix corresponding to the claims as amended
in appellant’s response filed on April 4, 2002 (Paper No. 13).
Although the amendment apparently was not properly entered in the
application file, we will consider the claims as they appear in
the Appendix to the brief. The examiner should make sure the
aforementioned amendment is correctly entered.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007