Appeal No. 2005-0811
Application No. 09/901,416
examiner's finding that layers 4 and 6 of Flanner may comprise
the same material as appellants' first and second hardmasks, we
perceive no meaningful distinction between methods encompassed by
claim 1 on appeal and methods fairly taught by Flanner,
particularly when one of the methods embraced by claim 1 includes
a photoresist mask over the first and second hardmask layers.
Although we agree with appellants' analysis of the
examiner's citation of Figures 20 and 21 of Flanner, we concur
with the examiner that methods within the scope of claim 1 on
appeal would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art in view of the collective teachings of Flanner and Blosse.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007