Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
cylindrical upper portion,” respectively. (Amendment filed Nov.
15, 2000, paper 16.)
The examiner’s position regarding amended claims 2 and 3 is
as follows (answer, pages 3-4):
The specification does not disclose the microcavity
has a frustoconical bottom portion, as recited in
claim 2, or has a cylindrical upper portion, as
recited in claim 3. Note that independent claim 1
requires a pinning layer to cover the microcavity
layer and at least one microcavity which is not shown
in the final structure of Figure 2. Only the
intermediate structure of Figure 1 has a pinning layer
covering the microcavity.
The appellants, on the other hand, argue that the subject
matter of amended claims 2 and 3 is adequately described in the
specification at page 10, lines 8-9 and Figures 2 and 5a-5c.
(Appeal brief, pages 3-4.)
We agree with the examiner on this issue. The cited
portions of the specification relate to the contact vias, not
the microcavity prior to the annealing step as described on page
8 of the specification.
For this reason, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on this
ground.
II. Claims 1 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Jeng
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007