Appeal 2007-0411
Application 10/320,122
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejections of
the appealed claims:
Chien US 6,010,942 Jan. 4, 2000
Blosse US 6,399,512 B1 Jun. 4, 2002
Lee US 6,410,400 B1 Jun. 25, 2002
Chueh 20040004004 A1 Jan. 8, 2004
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method for cleaning
high-density capacitors on a semiconductor wafer. The method entails
cleaning inorganic material from those capacitors with sulfuric acid.
Claims 1 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lee. Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Chien. Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Chueh, and claim 3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee in
view of Blosse.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find that the Examiner's
rejections are not well-founded.
The separate § 102 rejections over Lee and Chien suffer from the
same fatal flaw. All of the appealed claims require cleaning high-density
capacitors with sulfuric acid. However, as urged by Appellant, neither Lee
nor Chien describe the cleansing of high-density capacitors within the
meaning of § 102. As recognized by the Examiner, Lee discloses cleansing
an electrode, which is only a part of the capacitor, with sulfuric acid,
whereas Chein discloses the cleaning of a storage node, which also is simply
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013