Appeal 2007-0287
Application 10/705,347
Appellants further contend that the secondary references to Alers, Tu,
Chang ‘240, Ballance, Aronowitz, and Chang ‘964 do not suggest
application of their disclosures to plasma nitridation of gate stacks in
transistors after a gate etch (Br. 8-10 and 12).
The Examiner contends that both Colombo and Doyle teach the
benefits of nitridation in the presently claimed process, and that Alers and
Tu show that it was conventional in the art to nitridate with a nitrogen
plasma (Answer 3-6).
The Examiner contends that Chang ‘240, Ballance, Aronowitz, and
Chang ‘964 are “evidence to show that ‘performing both etching and
nitridation in the same plasma process chamber’ is … well known in the art
of semiconductor device fabrication.” (Answer 6).
Accordingly, the issues presented in this appeal are as follows: (1)
was it well known in this art to use a plasma containing nitrogen as a means
for effecting nitridation? and (2) was it well known in this art to perform
both etching and nitridation in the same plasma process chamber?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. We also determine, based on
the totality of the record, including due consideration of Appellants’
arguments, that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor
of obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we AFFIRM all
grounds of rejection in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons stated below.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013