Appeal 2006-2759
Application 10/043,860
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief for a complete exposition of
the positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by
the Examiner that, prima facie, the claimed method for pre-etching a
semiconductor wafer encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 3 would have
been obvious over the combined teachings of Torii and Miller (claim 1) and
of Torii, Miller, and Manos (claim 3) to one of ordinary skill in this art at the
time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie case
of obviousness has been established by the Examiner, we again evaluate all
of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a
whole, giving due consideration to the weight of Appellants’ arguments in
the Brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from the references,
conclusions of law based on this substantial evidence, and response to
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Answer, to which we add the
following for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Torii would have taught away from the
claimed invention by claiming “a two-step polishing method” (Br. 6-7). We
disagree. This is because we find that the “first” and “second” polishing
steps of Torii (Torii cols. 2-3, ¶¶ 0027 and 0028) correspond to the claimed
steps of “wet etching with a aqueous basic solution” and of “chemically
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007