Appeal No. 2005-0585
Application No. 09/821,478
second critical dimension to correct an offset between
said nested features and said isolated feature created
by said lithographic patterning.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said structure
comprises a negative photoresist; and
wherein said etching comprises a surface charging
technique in combination with a plasma etch, such that
said nested feature is etched faster than said
isolated feature.
On page 5 of the brief, appellant states that there are two
groups of claims, and that one of the groups of claims stands or
falls with claim 1, and the other group of claims stands or
falls with claim 4. We therefore consider claims 1 and 4 in
this appeal.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of Ma, and
further view of Horak.1
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Ma et al. (Ma) 5,783,101 Jul. 21, 1998
Tao et al. (Tao) 6,147,818 Jan. 16, 2001
Horak et al. (Horak) 6,297,166 Oct. 21, 2001
1 We note that on page 5 of the answer, the examiner indicates that
claims 1-20 are rejected in this rejection. However, we believe that
the examiner intended to indicate that claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20
stand rejected under this rejection because appellants indicate that
these claims are the only claims pending (brief, page 3), and the
examiner agreed with appellants’ summary of the status of the claims
(answer, page 2).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007