Appeal 2007-0653
Application 10/338,254
providing a mixture of oxygen-bearing gas and diluent gas normally
non-reactive to oxygen, the diluent gas being selected from the group
consisting of Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, and Rn;
ionizing the oxygen and diluent gas mixture to create a plasma having
an electron density of at least 1e12cm-3, the ionized oxygen and diluent gas
mixture forming energetic particles including atomic oxygen in the plasma;
and
oxidizing said substrate with the energetic particles created in the
plasma to form an oxide3 film of substantially uniform thickness.
11. The method of claim 9 wherein the silicon-containing material is
monocrystalline silicon having multiple crystallographic planes.
Claims 11, 12, 14-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, description requirement. Claims 1, 3-19, 21, and 22
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In addition, claims
1-10, 13-18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asmussen in view of Fairbairn and further in view of any
one of Yin, Iyer or Cathey. We note, however, that no appeal is taken for
claim 2.
The basis for the Examiner's Section 112, description requirement
rejection is the Examiner's understanding that monocrystalline silicon, or
single crystal silicon, can have only one crystallographic plane. The
Examiner explains that "[i]f there is the only one crystal, how can that single
crystal be in more than one orientation/plane at the same instance?" (page 5
of Answer, last paragraph). Also, the Examiner notes that "with respect to
claims 11-12, 19 & 21 know [sic, no] prior art was applied, because it is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013