Ex Parte Buie et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-1320                                                        
          Application No. 10/024,958                                                  
               introducing a processing gas comprising carbon                         
               monoxide and chlorine gas into the processing chamber,                 
               wherein the carbon monoxide and chlorine gas have a molar              
               ratio between about 1:9 and about 9:1; and                             
          delivering power to the processing chamber to generate                      
          a plasma and remove exposed portions of the metal photomask                 
          layer.                                                                      
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Meyer et al. (Meyer)            4,600,686          Jul. 15, 1986            
          Yasuzato et al. (Yasuzato)      5,750,290          May  12, 1998            
          Kornblit et al. (Kornblit)      5,948,570          Sep.  7, 1999            
          Demmin et al. (Demmin)          6,635,185          Oct. 21, 2003            
          (filed: Dec. 31, 1997)                                                      
               Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for              
          processing photolithographic reticles.  The method entails plasma           
          etching exposed portions of a metal photomask layer, such as                
          chromium, with a processing gas comprising carbon monoxide and              
          chlorine gas.                                                               
               Appealed claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                    
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kornblit in view of Meyer,              
          Yasuzato and Demmin.                                                        
               Appellants have not presented separate substantive arguments           
          for the dependent claims on appeal.  Accordingly, the dependent             
          claims stand or fall together with the independent claims upon              
          which they depend, namely, claims 1, 13 and 20.                             
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007