Appeal No. 2005-0811
Application No. 09/901,416
antireflective layers and an inorganic dielectric layer of TiN
(column 5, lines 50 et seq.).
It is appellants' principal contention that Flanner uses
photoresist layer 2 as the mask, and not the cap and
antireflection layers, 6 and 4, respectively. Appellants
maintain that layers 4 and 6 of Flanner are not hardmask layers
and that "[t]hey serve no masking function as that term is used
in the instant invention" (page 4 of principal brief, penultimate
sentence). Also, although appellants submit that a photoresist
layer is not present during the etch process, they do agree with
the examiner that the "comprising" language of claim 1 does not
preclude the presence of a photoresist masking layer over the
first and second hardmask layers.
Since cap layer 6 of Flanner may comprise SiN (column 4,
line 65), and appellants do not contest the examiner's conclusion
that antireflective layer 4 of Flanner may be TiN, the argued
difference between the claimed method and the modified method of
Flanner is one that is more semantical than substantive. While
Flanner does not refer to layers 4 and 6 as mask layers, it is
clear from Flanner's Figure 5 that layers 4 and 6, in addition to
layer 2, function as a mask layer during the etching of layers 8
and 12. Inasmuch as appellants do not take issue with the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007