Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
IV. claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 13 through 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Jost (id. at pages 5-6); and
V. claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Chou (id. at page 6).
We reverse: rejection II; rejection III as it applies to
claims 1, 2, and 4 through 7; rejection IV as it applies to
claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11; and rejection V as it applies to
claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11. However, we affirm: rejection I;
rejection III as it applies to claims 13, 14, and 16 through 19;
rejection IV as it applies to claims 13 through 16; and
rejection V as it applies to claims 13, 14, and 16.1
I. Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1
Claim 2, as originally filed, read: “The integrated circuit
device of claim 1, wherein the contact via has a frustoconical
bottom portion.” Claim 3, as originally filed, read: “The
integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein the contact via
has a cylindrical upper portion.” Subsequently, however, claims
2 and 3 were amended to recite “the microcavity has a
frustoconical bottom portion” and “the microcavity has a
1 The appellants submit: “Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13-19, and 23
do not stand or fall together.” (Appeal brief filed Jul. 30,
2001, paper 22, p. 3.) Accordingly, we will consider the claims
separately for each ground of rejection to the extent that they
have been separately argued pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007