Appeal No. 2005-0202 Page 8
Application No. 09/348,654
Appellant argues that despite a rather extensive shopping list of halogen compounds,
Landau fails to specifically teach a CH4-xFx compound and teaches that compounds of bromine
and fluorine are undesirable (Brief, p. 11).
First of all, some of the “shopping list of halogen compounds” listed by Appellant are
disclosed in Landau not as etchants, but as substitute adsorbent gaseous species (Landau, col. 4,
ll. 31-34). What Landau discloses in terms of etchants is the use of SiCl4 and Cl2, SCl6, SiCl4,
BCl3 plus Cl2, BCl3, CCl4, CHCl3, and C2HCl3 and compounds of other halogens, e.g.,
compounds of bromine and fluorine (Landau, col. 4, ll. 12- 22). This disclosure suggests CH4-xFx
compounds such as CF4 and CHF3 as those are homologs to the chlorine compounds listed.
Second, Landau does not teach away from using compounds of fluorine. That Landau
indicates that the chlorine compounds are, as a practical matter, more extensively used does not
negate the fact that the use of fluorine compounds is also taught. A reference may be relied upon
for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including
non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1847 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Disclosed examples and preferred
embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred
embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446 n.3, 169 USPQ 423, 426 n.3 (CCPA 1971).
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claims 1-7 and 9 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007