Appeal No. 2005-1503
Application No. 10/165,888
in column 5 beginning at line 17. The annealing step is carried
out at a temperature of from about 150°C to about 450°C, and
oxidizing gases, such as oxygen, are typically employed in the
annealing step. See column 5, lines 28-31 of Duncombe. It
appears that the examiner views the employment of these oxidizing
gases in the annealing step as some form of ion bombardment.1
Second, the examiner finds that Duncombe’s use of a chemical
vapor deposition process, is ion bombardment, in light of Keeble.
We also determine that this aspect of the examiner’s position is
unsupported by the evidence, for the following reasons.
The examiner refers to column 5, lines 1 through 4 of
Duncombe, for teaching amorphizing a dielectric layer by ion
bombardment. This is because the examiner believes that the
disclosed process therein, of chemical vapor deposition, is in
fact, amorphizing a dielectric layer by ion bombardment, in light
of Keeble. We disagree.
We note that Duncombe teaches, in column 4, line 66 through
column 5, line 8, a variety of suitable deposition processes.
One skilled in the art would first have to choose chemical vapor
deposition from among the described processes. Then, one skilled
in the art would have to choose the particular kind of chemical
vapor deposition as described in Keeble. That is, Keeble
describes a chemical vapor deposition process that consists of
introducing certain gases into a chamber, wherein the substrate
can be heated in order to promote the reaction, or alternatively,
the gases can be energized by means of a plasma to promote the
reaction. Keeble then states that the use of low energy ion
bombardment of the surface during the process will supply surface
energy to greatly improve the film quality.
1 We disagree with the examiner’s position, and agree with appellants’
position as set forth on page 3 of the brief, that “annealing is not
ion bombarding”.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007