Appeal No. 2006-0877
Application No. 09/894,230
CITATION OF REFERENCES
In rejecting the claimed subject matter on appeal the Examiner relies on the following
references:
George et al. (George) 4,980,563 Dec. 25, 1990
Kishimura 5,123,998 Jun. 23, 1992
Tsai et al. (Tsai) 5,899,748 May 4, 1999
Young et al. (Young) 6,255,022 B1 Jul. 03, 2001
Sato 6,337,163 B1 Jan. 08, 2002
Schroeder et al. (Schroeder) 6,379,869 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
Rangarajan et al. 6,451,512 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Singh et al. (Singh) 6,479,820 B1 Nov. 12, 2002
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
(a) claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Sato, Young, and Schroeder;
(b) claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of
Sato, Young, Schroeder, and Tsai;
(c) claims 19 to 23 and 37 to 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sato,
Young, Schroeder, Tsai, Kishimura, Singh, and George; and
(d) claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sato, Young, Schroeder, and
Rangarajan (Answer, pages 3 to 24).
The invention on appeal relates to a method for increasing the selectivity of a
photoresist. According to Appellants (Brief, page 1), the claimed invention provides for
improved selectivity of silicon-containing photoresist which allows for amelioration of a
subsequent etch profile.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007