Appeal No. 2000-1846
Application No. 08/709,879
third and fourth paragraphs). Consequently, we find that
appellants have not advanced a substantive argument regarding the
patentability of any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, we
find that all of the appealed claims stand or fall together. In
re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). See
also 37 CFR 1.192 c(7) and c(8)(1997).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability as well as the declaration evidence relied upon
in support thereof. However we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
There is no dispute that Murata, like appellants, discloses
a chemical amplification resist comprising an alkali soluble
polymer which has a protecting group that is unstable to an acid,
as well as the presently claimed compound which generates an acid
when upon being irradiated with light, an imidazole compound and
a phenol. As appreciated by the examiner, Murata does not
disclose the particular alkali soluble polymer that is recited in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007