Appeal 2007-0287
Application 10/705,347
(6) Alers teaches that using a nitrogen containing plasma for
nitridation is a conventional technique in the semiconductor art
(col. 3, ll. 40-44);
(7) Tu teaches that “a conventional nitridation step is carried out by
exposing the metal to a nitrogen containing plasma” (col. 6, ll. 7-
11);
(8) Chang ‘240, Ballance, Aronowitz, and Chang ‘964 all teach or
exemplify a single processing chamber used in sequence for two
processes, e.g., etching followed by plasma deposition (Chang
‘240, ¶ [0040]; Ballance, col. 1, ll. 31-34; Aronowitz, col. 2, ll. 45-
50, and Chang ‘964, ¶ [0041]).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). It is well
established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a
combination of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or
motivation to lead an inventor to combine these references. See Pro-Mold &
Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Applying these legal principles to the factual findings on this record in
this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. We also determine
that Appellants have not adequately rebutted this prima facie case of
obviousness by their arguments. As established by the factual findings listed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013