Appeal No. 2005-0293
Application No. 09/727,139
the dummy film is exposed; and removing the dummy film
to form the groove portion surrounded by the first
insulating film. [Emphasis added.]
According to Nakajima, the method for removing the dummy layer
may be accomplished by RIE, chemical dry etching, vapor phase
etching, wet etching, or a combination thereof. (Column 10,
lines 5-8.)
The examiner acknowledges that, in contrast to the
invention recited in appealed claim 1, Xiang does not teach
“reacting the surface layer [of the line segment] by vapor phase
etching.” (Answer at 3.) This difference notwithstanding, the
examiner held (id. at 4):
[I]t would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art at the time of claimed invention to combine
Nakakima’s [sic, Nakajima’s] teaching into Xiang et
al’s process because the both the RIE and VPE [vapor
phase etching] are functionally equivalent as taught
by Nakajima.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis. The examiner
does not dispute the appellants’ contention that vapor phase
etching provides an isotropic, self-limiting etch (appeal brief
at 6). While Nakajima does disclose that a dummy layer may be
removed by RIE, chemical dry etching, vapor phase etching, wet
etching, or a combination thereof, such a disclosure falls short
of constituting a specific motivation, suggestion, or teaching
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007