Appeal 2007-3372
Application 10/651,351
4).2 Appellant contends that Takahashi alone or together with Yasuzato
would not have taught or suggested the method of representative claim 1 to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in light of the
required approximately mid-depth photoresist focus location of the focus
step.
Thus, the principal issue before us with respect to the propriety of the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 is: Has
Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 by the assertions in the Briefs that Takahashi taken
alone or with Yasuzato would not have taught or suggested the photoresist
approximate mid-depth location for the focusing of the altered mask pattern
image?
We answer this question in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 over Takahashi taken with
Yasuzato for substantially the reasons stated in the Answer. We offer the
following for emphasis.
Appellant acknowledges that Yasuzato teaches a depth of focus for
focusing a mask pattern image on a photoresist that is “the range in which
the deviation from the focus position is permissible.” (Reply Br. 3 quoting
from Yasuzato, col. 1, ll. 45-49). In other words, Yasuzato teaches an
increased range of deviation from an ideal focus position of a mask pattern
image on a photoresist for permissible or acceptable results that allows for
the precision of the pattern dimensions to be enhanced (Yasuzato, col. 5, l.
25 - col. 6, l. 7). Consequently, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
2 Arguments not made in the Briefs are considered to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013