Appeal No. 2000-1585
Application No. 08/883,427
Appellants first point out (brief at page 10) that
[c]laim 27 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,567,834 to Sobczak in
view of either of U.S. Patent 5,441,765 to Ballance et
al or U.S. Patent 5,320,868 to Ballance. (sic, Ballance
et al.)
We note that the examiner did reject claim 27 based on Sobczak
and Ballance ‘765 or Ballance ‘868 (final rejection at pages 6
and 7), as appellants argue in the brief. However, the examiner
dropped the rejection based on Sobczak in view of Ballance ‘765
(answer at pages 2 and 3), therefore, the only rejection for our
consideration on this appeal is the rejection of claim 27 based
on Sobczak in view of Ballance ‘868 (herein called simply
Ballance, consistent with the examiner’s answer and appellants’
brief).
Quoting a passage (brief at page 11) from the prosecution
history of U.S. Patent 5,441,765 to Ballance et al., appellants
argue (id.) that “[a]s stated above, the present invention
recites annealing in the presence of hydrogen which is not
suggested by Ballance. Furthermore, Ballance fails to suggest
coatings having a dielectric constant of less than 3.2, as
achievable according to the present invention.” The examiner
responds (answer at pages 4 and 5) that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007