Appeal 2007-1097
Application 10/230,593
1 photoresist 10 is a concern, and in some cases, the etching
2 process must be periodically stopped to allow for cooling.
3 [Emphasis added.]
4
5 The Appellant argues that the final sentence of the passage reproduced
6 above is not an embodiment of the Gupta invention. However, the
7 Appellant argues that even if the final sentence can be considered an
8 embodiment of the Gupta invention, Gupta, at best, teaches etching via a N2
9 and O2 mixture. See Gupta 7:24-27. The Appellant argues that Gupta does
10 not disclose an embodiment using a mixture consisting of CO2 and only one
11 other gas. Appeal Brief at 10.
12 To the extent that Gupta discloses that etching without helium is less
13 than optimal, we find that Gupta nonetheless discloses that oxygen and
14 nitrogen may be used alone in the disclosed etching process. Indeed, we
15 find that Example 2 illustrates a dry plasma etch process for patterning an
16 ARC layer wherein “A mixture of oxygen and nitrogen, without helium
17 provided an increased etch rate.” Gupta 11:26-47.
18 The disclosure of Gupta focuses on molecular oxygen, O2, as the
19 source of oxygen plasma. Nevertheless, Gupta expressly discloses that
20 alternative sources of oxygen plasma include CO2. Gupta 7:21-24 and 9:17-
21 18.
22 For the reasons set forth above, it is reasonable to find that Gupta
23 anticipates the method of claim 1.
24 The Appellant does not argue the patentability of claims 11, 20, and
25 23-26 separately. Therefore, claims 11, 20, and 23-26 stand with claim 1.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013