Appeal 2005-2100
Application 09/826,038
acquiring, after said step of dry etching, the dimension of the film to be
processed;
determining processing requirements for said step of wet etching on the basis of
the dimension of the film to be processed; and
wherein said step of wet etching is performed in accordance with the processing
requirements.
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of unpatentability:
Funk US 6,148,239 Nov. 14, 2000
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Funk.
OPINION
I. The Art Rejection
The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on page 3 of the Answer.
Beginning on page 4 of the Brief, Appellant asserts that Funk fails to teach the
following claimed features:
(a) the specific set of processing steps (i.e., dry etching and wet etching);
(b) the specific order in which these processing steps are to be performed (i.e.,
wet etching after dry etching); and
(c) the specific variable (i.e., dimension of the film) that is to be acquired
after the dry etching and later used to determine processing requirements of the
wet etching.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007