Appeal 2007-2494
Application 10/161,134
[28] The Examiner finds that Su teaches a doped polysilicon, and
therefore, a doped silicon, layer underlying or supporting an imagable
material (i.e., photoresist) layer (Answer at 4 and 6).
[29] The Examiner concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the
requisite art at the time of the invention to modify
Mason by substituting silicon or conductively
doped silicon for oxidated silicon or oxidated
doped silicon (non-critical in the instant
specification) as taught by Su to be known for
imagable material support (Answer at 7).
[30] According to the Examiner, Appellants'
specification teaches no criticality between the
use of an oxide of silicon (doped or undoped)
and silicon. Also note the specification (page 13
lines 11-12) teaches the layer "can consist of
essentially silicon, conductively doped silicon, or
silicon dioxide". [Answer at 4 and 6, original
emphasis.]
[31] Appellants argue that nothing in Su teaches or suggests that
substitution of Su's disclosed polysilicon material for the oxide
material forming Mason's optical assist layer 16 would meet the
refractive index requirements of Mason (Br. at 8-9; Reply Br.6 at 2).
[32] Appellants further argue that Su retains polysilicon layer 10 after
removal of photoresist layer 13 to function as a control gate, contrary
to the claimed invention which requires removal of both imagable
material (photoresist) and imagable-material-supporting material
(polysilicon) layers after patterning the materials (Br. at 9; Reply Br.
at 3).
6 Reply Brief under 37 CFR §41.41, filed 22 March 2006 ("Reply Br.")).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013