Ex Parte Chang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2012

10714305 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/714,305 11/14/2003 Jei-Wei Chang HTIRC03-005 2109
7590 03/20/2012
GEORGE O. SAILE
28 DAVIS AVENUE
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603
EXAMINER
CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEI-WEI CHANG, CHAO-PENG CHEN,
CHUNPING LUO, and SHOU-CHEN KAO
____________

Appeal 2010-003023
Application 10/714,305
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:

Appeal 2010-003023
Application 10/714,305

2
1. A liftoff method for photolithography, comprising:

depositing a single layer of photoresist on a substrate;

exposing and developing said photoresist layer thereby forming a
photoresist pattern having sidewalls and an upper surface;

irradiating said upper surface with an ion beam having a direction
parallel to said sidewalls, said ion beam comprising ions whose energy is too
low to sputter said layer of photoresist;

maintaining said ion beam irradiation for a time period whereby a
hardened layer is formed that extends a distance downwards from said upper
surface, all remaining photoresist being unhardened;

then exposing said photoresist pattern to ozone whereby said
sidewalls are eroded and said hardened layer is unchanged so that the
hardened layer overhangs the unhardened layer;

depositing a layer of a material onto all horizontal surfaces to a
thickness that is less than that of said unhardened photoresist layer; and

selectively removing said unhardened photoresist layer whereby all of
said material that is deposited onto said hardened photoresist layer is lifted
off.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamada et al. (Yamada) 4,904,619 Feb. 27, 1990
Leuschner et al. (Leuschner) 5,512,334 Apr. 30, 1996
Kim et al. (Kim) US 2002/0001957 A1 Jan. 3, 2002
Furihata et al. (Furihata) 6,389,944 B1 May 7, 2002
Bloomstein et al. (Bloomstein) 6,833,234 B1 Dec. 21, 2004

Appeal 2010-003023
Application 10/714,305

3

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable Yamada in view of Bloomstein.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamada in view of Bloomstein and further in view of Furihata.
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamada in view of Bloomstein and further in view of Kim.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yamada in view of Bloomstein and further in view of Leuschner.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in determining that Yamada teaches the aspect
of claim 1 of “irradiating said upper surface with an ion beam having a
direction parallel to said sidewalls, said ion beam comprising ions whose
energy is too low to sputter said layer of photoresist”?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
ANALYSIS

Appellants argue that Yamada’s sputter etching is not the same as the
ion beam irradiation recited in claim 1. Br. 7. We agree because the
Examiner has not established on this record that Yamada’s sputter etching is
equivalent to the ion beam process step according to Appellants’ claim 1.
See generally Answer. In a §103(a) obviousness rejection, the Patent Office
Appeal 2010-003023
Application 10/714,305

4
has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. To establish prima
facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be
taught or suggested by the prior art. "When determining whether a claim is
obvious, an examiner must make a searching comparison of the claimed
invention, including all its limitations, with the teaching of the prior art."
In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Also, arguments and
conclusions unsupported by factual evidence carry no evidentiary weight.
In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Lindner, 457
F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972).
In view of the above, we therefore reverse Rejection 1. Because the
other applied references in the other rejections do not cure this deficiency of
Yamada, we reverse Rejections 2, 3, and 4 also.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED

cam