Appeal No. 2004-2192
Application No. 09/414,520
must result in a structural difference. Answer, page 6. We
agree with the examiner, with regard to apparatus claim 4, and
refer to our above comments in this regard. However, with regard
to process claims 6, 7, 9, and 10, we do not agree with the
examiner’s position.
The issue is whether one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to incorporate the teachings of Ovshinsky (directed to
an improved chemical vapor deposition method) to modify the
method for etching as set forth in Satou. We find that the
examiner’s position fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have selected the frequency used in the PECVD
method of Ovshinsky, involving different precursor gases than
Satou, in the etching method of Satou, which involves different
precursor gases than Ovshinsky. Satou is directed to etching,
and uses gases such as BCl1 and Cl2, whereas Ovshinsky is
directed to depositing materials using gases as set forth in
claim 17, in column 20, of Ovshinksy.
Also, the examiner relies upon Akahori for teaching plasma
generation by ECR, including carbon and fluorine species, and for
the use of intermittent microwave application. However, the
examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have used the precursor gases of Akahori in the process of
Satou.
Because the examiner has not provided an explanation as
discussed above, we determine that the examiner has not met his
burden of setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to the process claims.
In view of the above, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. §103
rejection of claims 6, 7, 9 and 10.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007