Appeal 2005-2100
Application 09/826,038
order of the types of etching steps is in effect a teaching that a particular order can be
selected based upon process/product requirements. Hence, we agree with the
Examiner’s position wherein the Examiner concluded that Funk suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art that dry etching and wet etching can be conducted, and that the
specific order of such etching will be chosen according to the specific requirements.
Absent evidence of criticality2, as in the instant case, we agree with the examiner that a
prima facie case of obviousness has been established in this regard.
With regard to Appellant’s argument that Funk does not suggest the specific
variable (i.e., dimension of the film) that is to be acquired, we again agree with the
Examiner’s explanation. The Examiner, on page 3 of the Answer, explains that Funk
utilizes FICD (Final Inspect Critical Dimension measurement). Funk defines FICD
measurements as being relevant for analyzing two aspects of feature sizes. One aspect
is a critical dimension, the absolute size of a feature, including line width, spacing or
contact dimension. Funk also teaches that another aspect is the variation in feature size
across the wafer surface as measured by steps of a wafer stepper. See column 11, lines
54-62 of Funk.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Funk’s measurement of dimensions
suggests measurement of the dimension of a film.
We also, again, note that Appellant admits on page 1 of the specification, that the
thickness of a film is a common measurement taken between etching steps in an effort
to stabilize processing (the admitted prior art uses the measurement taken in a feed
2 Our dissenting colleague views Appellant’s specification, regarding embodiment 5,
as describing an advantage of performing a wet etch after a dry etch. We believe that
an “advantage” is not evidence of unexpectedly superior results which is required to
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007