Appeal No. 2005-0202 Page 4
Application No. 09/348,654
dry etching (step b) to pattern the target layer. After etching, an anti-after-corrosion treatment is
conducted to remove etching residue (step c) and then the photo-resist is removed by ashing
(step d).
The process of the claims is used in the formation of conductive lines in semiconductor
devices. Konno describes such a process with steps of masking, etching, anti-after-corrosion
treatment and ashing. As acknowledged by the Examiner, Konno does not describe performing
the anti-after-corrosion treatment prior to the ashing step. In Konno, the anti-after-corrosion
treatment is performed either concurrently with ashing or after ashing (Konno, abstract; col. 3, l.
51 to col. 4, l. 10). But, as found by the Examiner, not only were concurrent anti-after-corrosion
treatment and after anti-after-corrosion treatment known in the prior art, but anti-after-corrosion
treatment before ashing was also known to those of ordinary skill in the art (Answer, p. 4
referring to Admitted Prior Art, specification, p. 4).3 We agree with the Examiner that the
evidence indicates that those of ordinary skill in the art understood that the steps could be
conducted in any of the known sequences.
In the arguments, Appellant focuses on a portion of the rejection in which Ex parte Rubin
was cited for the proposition that “in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of
one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of
function, manner and result, was held to [] not patentably distinguish the processes.” (Brief, p. 7
quoting Final Rejection, p. 3). Appellant argues that “[i]n reaching this conclusion, the
3Appellant does not contest the finding of the Examiner that the discussion in the last paragraph of page 3
and on page 4 of the specification is admitted prior art. We, therefore, accept the finding as true.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007