Appeal No. 2005-0293
Application No. 09/727,139
to combine the two references. That is, the examiner does not
point to any teaching in either Xiang or Nakajima that would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that RIE and
vapor phase etching would be interchangeable for the purpose
described in Xiang, which is to carry out an anisotropic etching
process to form reactive sidewall spacers 33 and 35 or to remove
etch stop layer 16.
Even if Xiang is combined with Nakajima, the combination
does not result in the invention recited in appealed claim 1.
As pointed out by the appellants (appeal brief at 6), Xiang’s
etching does not react “a surface layer of the line segment by
vapor phase etching to form a layer of a reaction product on
sidewalls of the line segment” as recited in appealed claim 1.”
[Emphasis Added] Rather, Xiang’s etching process merely forms
reactive sidewall spacers 33 and 35 (Figs. 4 and 5) or removes
etch stop layer 16 (Figs. 8 and 9).
Under these circumstances, we hold that the examiner has
not satisfied the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007