Appeal No. 2005-1220
Application No. 09/270,606 Page 4
(iv), as identified above. Claims 15 and 20 are separately
identified as standing or falling alone. Consequently, to the
extent appellant has clearly stated that the latter claims do not
stand or fall together and have also argued each claim separately
with respect to any particular ground of rejection consistent
with 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7) and (8), as in effect at the time of
the filing of the briefs1, we shall treat those claims
separately.
We start with claim 1, which is representative of the Group
(i) claims.
Appellant does not dispute that Kodera is directed to a
method of fabricating an integrated circuit semiconductor device
using chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). Kodera teaches that a
substrate with an overlying silicon dioxide layer with low and
high structure areas can be polished using a CMP slurry
containing cerium oxide, wherein the silicon dioxide film that is
polished can be completely planarized. See, e.g., column 12,
lines 13-65 and column 20, line 1 through column 23, line 33 and
Figures 19 E and 19 F of Kodera. As readily apparent from a
complete reading of Kodera, the high structure areas are polished
1
1Also, see the current regulation as to separate claim
arguments as set forth in 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September
13, 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007