Appeal No. 95-3170
Application No. 07/813,749
the claimed photoresist and the photoresists of the admitted
prior art that are subjected to an exposure to a reduction
optical system. Consequently, we find that the prior art
relied upon by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
One final point remains. In the event of further
prosecution of the subject matter at bar, the examiner should
consider whether the exposed photoresist disclosed by Diemeer
inherently has a "non-linear optical property which increases
with respect to increasing light intensity," as presently
claimed. We say this because appellants' specification
attributes the claimed property to the photoresist structure
having a nitrostilbene functional group, and the photoresist
material of Diemeer possesses nitrostilbene functional groups.
For the appropriate, controlling legal principle, the examiner
should consult In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA
1977).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007