Appeal 2007-0287
Application 10/705,347
above, Colombo not only teaches the etching process and the benefits of the
nitridation process, but further teaches using a plasma to effectuate the
nitridation (factual finding (4) above). Furthermore, Colombo teaches that
nitridation can be accomplished by “any suitable technique” (factual finding
(3) above). Alers and Tu both teach “conventional techniques” for
nitridation involving the use of a nitrogen plasma (factual findings (6) and
(7) above). We determine that this teaching by Colombo would have
suggested or motivated one of ordinary skill in this art to use conventional
techniques such as those disclosed by Alers and Tu. We further determine
that the Examiner has established that it was well known in the art to use a
single processing chamber for two or more process steps. See factual
finding (5) above, where Colombo suggests using the same process chamber
for two process steps. See also factual finding (8) above, where the
Examiner cites four references to establish that it was well known in the
semiconductor fabrication art to perform etching and plasma deposition
steps in the same processing chamber. We determine that the Examiner has
set forth sufficient reasoning to use a single processing chamber, namely that
such a step is “efficient and more cost effective” (Answer 4-6). Appellants
have not disputed this reasoning (see the Brief in its entirety).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
both rejections on appeal. The decision of the Examiner is thus affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013