Appeal 2007-2417
Application 10/688,521
added to the plasticizer that is absorbed onto the photoresist after
development.
Meagley does not take issue with the Examiner’s finding. Instead,
Meagley argues that “there is a total absence of teaching or rationale to
combine [Hallock and Verhaverbeke]. (Appeal Br. 9).
First Meagley argues that “Verhaverbeke has nothing to do with a
photoresist.” (Appeal Br. A 9). However, as the Examiner pointed out
Verhaverbeke discusses employing a supercritical fluid to remove fluids
from a developed, i.e., patterned, photoresist (Answer 6-9).
Meagley next argues that one skilled in the art would have had no
reason to combine Verhaverbeke with Hallock since Hallock is concerned
with reducing line edge roughness and Verhaverbeke is not.
We do not agree. The reason for combining the references need not
be to achieve a result sought by Applicant. KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1732,
82 USPQ2d 1397. Verhaverbeke teaches that removal of water/solvent after
development through the use of a supercritical fluid has the advantages of
keeping the photoresist pattern from collapsing and allowing the photoresist
“to retain the shape and integrity of its patterned features.” Thus, one skilled
in the art would have had a reason to add a supercritical fluid to the process
of Hallock, i.e., to obtain the advantages discussed in Verhaverbeke.
In its reply brief, Meagley argues that the Examiner improperly relied
upon a teaching in Verhaverbeke that is directed to removal of photoresists.
(Reply Br. at 2). While Verhaverbeke discusses the use of a supercritical
fluid to remove a photoresist (Verhaverbeke at 005700), we do not
understand the Examiner to be relying upon that portion of Verhaverbeke.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013