Appeal 2007-2490
Application 09/846,255
This teaching, in our view, would reasonably suggest to the skilled
artisan that a dynamic mode could be utilized in lieu of the pulse mode of
Mehta. Although Appellants argue that the skilled artisan would not equate
Mehta’s pulse mode with Verhaverbeke’s static mode (Br. 7), we find this
argument unavailing. Verhaverbeke’s static mode (1) fills the reactor with
process gas at a certain pressure, (2) isolates the reactor for a certain time
period (e.g., 200 seconds), and (3) evacuates the reactor (Verhaverbeke, col.
3, ll. 22-25; col. 6, ll. 14-30). Mehta’s pulse mode (1) adds anhydrous HF
gas to an anhydrous inert gaseous environment in pulses with 3-8 second
duration (and perhaps even longer),4 (2) flushes the environment with
anhydrous inert gas, and (3) repeats steps (1) and (2), as appropriate, for
oxide layer removal (Mehta, col. 2, ll. 7-25; col. 3, ll. 3-44; col. 4, ll. 23-46;
Abstract).
Although both Mehta’s pulse mode and Verhaverbeke’s static mode
utilize somewhat different procedures, they nonetheless share a fundamental
characteristic: they both apply process gas to the substrate intermittently or
cyclically.5 Based on this fundamental common attribute, the skilled artisan
would have readily associated the pulse and static modes of Mehta and
Verhaverbeke respectively, at least with respect to a dynamic mode (i.e., an
unbroken, continuous application of process gas for a relatively longer
duration).
4 See P. 6, supra, of this opinion.
5 Since our finding is based solely on the disclosures of Mehta and
Verhaverbeke, we need not further discuss the Westendorp reference (US
5,167,761) that Verhaverbeke refers to in passing in connection with the
static mode. See Verhaverbeke, col. 2, l. 10; see also Answer 7-8; Reply Br.
1-2.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013