Appeal No. 2004-1999 Page 2
Application No. 09/772,001
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to a surface treatment agent and a patterning process. Claims 19
and 20 are illustrative:
19. A surface treatment agent which, when applied to a substrate prior to formation of a
resist pattern thereon, strengthens adhesion between the substrate and the resist pattern, the
surface treatment agent comprising at least one compound of the following compositional
formula:
R1R2a(OX)bSiO(3-a-b)/2 (1)
wherein R1 is a -(CH2)nY moiety in which Y is epoxycyclohexyl, glycidoxy, N-$-
aminoethylamino, amino, N-phenylamino, mercapto or isocyanate, and n is an integer from 0 to
4; R2 is a monovalent hydrocarbon group of 1 to 4 carbons; X is hydrogen or a monovalent
hydrocarbon group of 1 to 4 carbons; “a” is 0 or 1, and “b” is 0, 1 or 2 when “a” is 0, and “b” is 0
or 1 when “a” is 1.
20. A patterning process comprising the steps of applying the surface treatment agent of
claim 19 to a substrate and baking, then applying thereon a photoresist composition and
patterning the photoresist.
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art
references:
Harris et al. (Harris) 5,668,210 Sep. 16, 1997
Lutz et al. (Lutz) 5,973,044 Oct. 26, 1999
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lutz in
view of Harris.
We reverse for the following reasons. We also remand to the Examiner for consideration
in light of further evidence.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007