Appeal No. 2005-2100
Application No. 09/826,038
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
The only claim before this panel for review is directed to a method for the
manufacture of a semiconductor device. See supra, claim 6.3 As I understand claim 6
the method comprises the following two etching steps:
(1) dry etching a predetermined film to be processed; and
(2) wet etching, after said step of dry etching, the predetermined film to be
processed.
To further emphasize the order of these etching steps, claim 6 also requires that
the wet etching step be performed in accordance with the following two processing
requirements, which occur after the dry etching step:
(a) acquiring, after said step of dry etching, the dimension of the film to be
processed; and
(b) determining processing requirements for said step of wet etching on the basis
of the dimension of the film to be processed.
3 The only remaining pending claims, claims 4, 5 and 7-19 have been withdrawn from
consideration pursuant to the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b). Specifically, claims
11-19 were withdrawn from consideration in response to the December 18, 2002
restriction requirement. See Appellant’s election, received January 16, 2003, wherein
the subject matter of then pending claims 1-10 was elected for prosecution on the
merits. Appellant subsequently cancelled claims 1-3. See amendment received May
13, 2003. Claims 4, 5 and 7-10 were then withdrawn from consideration in response to
the June 5, 2003 requirement to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the
merits. See Appellant’s election, received June 26, 2003.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007