Appeal No. 2006-0291
Application No. 09/820,692
processing region 72" while Schmitt teaches that his capacitively coupled RF plasma
reactor is improved to “notably reduce the electromagnetic non uniformity during the
plasma process” (Liu, col. 4, ll. 42-45; Schmitt, col. 4, ll. 1-4).
Appellants argue that Liu “teaches away” from the claimed pressure and
temperature of independent claims 1, 24 and 25 (Brief, page 12; Reply Brief, page 10).
This argument is not well taken for several reasons. As correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 8), the teaching of a preferred pressure of “no more than 40 milliTorr” in
Liu is directed to only one specific embodiment (col. 11, ll. 36-54), while the use of a low
temperature is only found in the examples (Tables 1-4). Liu tests a range of pressures
(25 to 70 mT)(col. 11, ll. 39-42) and further teaches various result-effective parameters,
including the amount of oxygen and argon in the etching gas (col. 10, ll. 22-29), the
residence time (col. 11, ll. 1-2), the magnetic field (col. 11, ll. 13-15), and the pressure
and flow rates (col. 8, ll. 27-38). Further evidence of various result-effective variables in
this art has been cited by the examiner (Answer, page 5). We also note that the optimal
pressures taught by Liu are for a MERIE plasma reactor, not the dual frequency
capacitively coupled plasma reactor of Schmitt. Accordingly, absent a showing of
unexpected results, we determine that the pressure and temperature limitations as
claimed would have been well within the optimization skills of one of ordinary skill in this
art. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8-9 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to appellants’ arguments concerning various dependent claims
(Brief, pages 14-18; Reply Brief, pages 12-16), we adopt the findings and conclusions of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007