Appeal 2007-1884
Application 10/329,205
claimed temperature value, stating that “[a]lthough the silicon etch process
was tested only at a substrate temperature of about 385°C (a susceptor
temperature of 450°C), the temperature need not be that high” (Specification
2, last para.). The Specification goes on to state that “[i]t is a matter of
routine experimentation to determine the minimum temperature to which a
substrate or workpiece must be elevated in order to cause the molecular
fluorine gas to react with and remove a silicon layer exposed on the
substrate” (id.).
We also do not subscribe to Appellants’ position that Hiroi’s
discussion of the prior art silicon etching with fluorocarbon plasmas
indicates that the molecular fluorine etch disclosed is also in the plasma
state. Hiroi simply states that the prior art employed fluorocarbon plasmas,
but provides no teaching that the molecular fluorine etchant is in the plasma
state. Conspicuously absent is any discussion of using molecular fluorine
plasma.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013