Appeal No. 2001-0416
Application No. 09/074,292
It is readily apparent that the examiner’s rejection can
only be based upon improper hindsight reasoning. See W. L. Gore
& Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (“To imbue one of ordinary skill in the
art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art
reference or references of record convey or suggest that
knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a
hindsight syndrom wherein that which only the inventor taught is
used against its teacher.”) Accordingly, the rejection is
reversed.
3. Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lee and further in view of Keyser
The examiner relies on Keyser as disclosing an etching
method for integrated circuit fabrication wherein a selectively
protected film is later removed to expose the substrate.
Examiner’s answer, page 3, last paragraph. Like Lee, Keyser
fails to disclose or suggest an etching step in which the masks
are offset by a distance of ½ the minimum pitch as required by
claim 3. Accordingly, this rejection is reversed for the same
reasons set forth above in connection with claim 1, from which
claim 3 depends.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007