Appeal No. 96-1478
Application 08/232,459
inorganic material film 5, these materials are preferably
formed to have a thickness of 0.05 micrometer or less or a
thickness of 0.5 micrometer or more, respectively." (Col. 5,
line 65 to col. 6, line 2.)
The examiner finds that "[t]he Iwasaki reference
discloses the equivalence of the Al O and SiO layers for2 3 2
the purpose of protection, not (anti)reflection" (EA6). The
examiner concludes that "[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art that the silicon dioxide
film of Iwasaki could replace the aluminum oxide film of
Kato since Iwasaki discloses their equivalence" (EA3). The
examiner states that "[a]n inherent feature resulting from
providing this SiO layer would be the antireflection
2
property" (EA6).
Appellants argue that "Kato specifically discloses only
the utilization of Al O film and only protective purposes
23
without any suggestion regarding antireflection properties"
(emphasis omitted) (Br11). Appellants refer to the
declaration of Mr. Yoshifumi Tomita, which describes that
Al O functions as a reflection-enhancing film, whereas SiO2 3 2
functions as an antireflection film (Br13). The examiner
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007