Appeal No. 2001-0416
Application No. 09/074,292
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
In our view, the examiner has not met this burden of showing
why one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the knowledge
in the art and appellant’s specification, would not be apprised
of the scope of the claims on appeal. Appellant has persuasively
argued that a skilled artisan, having considered the
specification in its entirety, would have no difficulty
understanding the scope of the term “½ the minimum pitch”. The
examiner’s one sentence explanation in support of his rejection
simply does not address the argument set forth in appellant’s
brief. Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
2. Rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lee
According to the examiner, Lee teaches the invention as
claimed with the exception of specifying that the second mask is
offset by a distance of ½ the minimum pitch. Examiner’s answer,
page 3, first and second paragraphs. The examiner maintains that
“a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to modify Lee by offsetting the masks [by] any particular
amount with the anticipating [sic] of an expected result.” Id.,
at second paragraph.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007