Appeal No. 2005-2100
Application No. 09/826,038
Therefore, there can be no doubts that claim 6 requires that the wet etching step is
performed after the dry etching step. For clarity, claim 6 is drawn to a method that
comprises the following steps in the order recited:
(i) dry etch a predetermined film to be processed;
(ii) acquire the dimension of the film to be processed after step (i);
(iii) determine the processing requirements for the wet etching step based on
the dimension of the film acquired in step (ii); and
(iv) wet etch the predetermined film to be processed according to the
processing requirements determined in step (iii).
Thus, the literal language of the claim supports the construction of claim 6 as
comprising the steps in the order recited. Appellant’s specification also supports this
construction of the claimed method. According to Appellant’s specification (page 19),
“[i]n the manufacturing system according to the present embodiment, wet-etching
requirements can be corrected on the basis of the dimension of the oxide film . . .
which has been dry-etched.” More specifically, Appellant discloses as a fifth
embodiment of the invention, the advantage of performing the process steps in the
order recited in claim 6. See Specification, pages 16-17 and figures 7A-7E, wherein
Appellant discloses:
The principal reasons for causing dimensional errors in the
interconnection 52 formed through the foregoing procedures are (1)
dimensional errors in the resist film 50 formed by means of
photolithography and (2) dimensional errors in the oxide film 48 caused
by side etching, which etching would arise during the dry etching process.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007