Appeal 2007-0287
Application 10/705,347
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Doyle US 5,891,798 Apr. 06, 1999
Ballance US 6,090,210 Jul. 18, 2000
Alers US 6,265,260 B1 Jul. 24, 2001
Tu US 6,566,250 B1 May 20, 2003
Aronowitz US 6,759,337 B1 Jul. 06, 2004
Chang (Chang ‘240) US 2004/0188240 A1 Sep. 30, 20041
Chang (Chang ‘964) US 2005/0019964 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
Colombo US 2005/0079696 A1 Apr. 14, 2005
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 6-8, 14-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Colombo or Doyle in view of Alers or Tu,
further “as evidenced” by Chang ‘240, Ballance, Aronowitz, or Chang ‘964
(Answer 3 and 4).2
Appellants contend that Colombo does not disclose, teach, or suggest
utilizing a plasma, much less using the same plasma chamber for both the
gate etch and nitridation processes (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that Doyle does not suggest that the processes of
etching the gate stack and the nitridation of the etched gate stack are
performed in a single plasma chamber (Br. 12).
1 We note that Chang ‘240 is mistakenly omitted in the “Evidence Relied
Upon,” with Chang ‘964 cited two times (Answer 2-3, ¶ (8)). However, we
deem this error harmless since the references are correctly listed both in the
Brief (page 6) and the statement of the rejection in the Answer (page 3).
2 For purposes of judicial economy, we list the two separate rejections in the
Answer as one rejection with alternate primary references, since both
rejections on appeal include the same claims with the same secondary
references applied for the same reasons (Br. 6; Answer 3 and 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013