Appeal 2007-2490
Application 09/846,255
Furthermore, the fact that Verhaverbeke uses carboxylic acid (unlike
Mehta) does not otherwise detract from Verhaverbeke’s fundamental
teaching (i.e., that the static and dynamic modes are interchangeable). That
is, the skilled artisan would readily understand that substrates can be etched
by applying process gas in either an intermittent or a continuous fashion for
a relatively longer duration (i.e., a static or dynamic mode). In short, we see
no reason why the skilled artisan would not apply this fundamental teaching
to the system of Mehta. In our view, applying process gas to a substrate in a
continuous, unbroken fashion in lieu of pulsing such gas would be readily
applicable to Mehta’s system irrespective of the absence of carboxylic acid
or water. Moreover, Mehta’s silence regarding utilizing a continuous,
unbroken application of process gas (i.e., a dynamic mode) -- even despite
its relative simplicity and concomitant advantages as compared to a pulsed
technique as noted by Appellants6 -- simply does not preclude its application
in Mehta’s system.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim.
6 See Br. 6; see also Specification 45:20-22 (noting the favorable results
achieved with Appellants’ Example 1 which feeds anhydrous HF and heated
nitrogen gas into a treatment chamber (see Specification page 28, line 8, et
seq.) as compared to the pulsed treatment of Comparative Example 3 which
alternately introduces HF gas and nitrogen into a chamber (see Specification
page 41, line 22, et seq.)).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013