Appeal No. 2006-0877
Application No. 09/894,230
portion (17) (shown in Figure 1D). Figure 1D clearly exhibits that the hardened area (16)
functions as an etching mask. However, the process of Sato differs from the claimed invention
in that the developed silicon-containing photoresist layer is not disposed over a non-silicon-
containing photoresist layer. The Examiner relies on the Young and Schroeder references for
teaching that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a resist could have been
formed having an organosilicon-containing photoresist layer disposed over a non-silicon-
containing photoresist layer. The Examiner further explains that Young and Schroeder disclose
the hardening/development of the top silicon-containing photoresist layer followed by a
subsequent etching (Answer, pages 6 to 8). The Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the process of Sato wherein the photoresist
comprised a developed silicon-containing photoresist layer over a non-silicon-containing
photoresist layer in the process of Sato.
Appellants argue that the Young reference is incompatible with the teachings of Sato
and would render Sato unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (Brief, pages 6 and 7). We agree.
While it may be known, as suggested by the Examiner, that a photoresist could be
formed comprising a silicon-containing organosiloxane over a non-silicon-containing
organosiloxane, this does not indicate that such structure would be suitable for the invention of
Sato.2 Specifically, Sato requires the underlying film to be a material whose etch rate is
2 We note that Appellants have not argued that it was not known to develop a
silicon-containing photoresist layer, or that the formation of a photoresist
comprising a silicon-containing photoresist layer over a non-silicon-
containing photoresist layer would not have been obvious (see Brief
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007