Appeal 2007-1884
Application 10/329,205
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 8.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We concur with the Examiner that Mucha, Badmaeva, and Hiroi
establish that it was known in the art that molecular fluorine gas can be used
to etch silicon, and that temperature is a result-effective variable regarding
the effectiveness of the etching. In particular, Mucha expressly discloses
that etching depths for silicon varied from 2,000 to 75,000 angstroms,
depending on the temperature, pressure, and time. Mucha also discloses that
molecular fluorine produces a rougher edge than atomic fluorine (Mucha
3530, col. 1, last para.). In addition, Mucha teaches that molecular fluorine
preferentially etches silicon versus SiO2 to a greater extent than atomic
fluorine (Mucha 3530, col. 2, third para.). Hiroi also discloses that
molecular fluorine etches silicon below 580°C. Likewise, Badmaeva
teaches that molecular fluorine etching of silicon is contingent upon
temperature. Accordingly, we find that the prior art cited by the Examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013