Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
fairly rigid such that it does not expand or shrink during the
anneal relative to the microcavity layer.
Accordingly, we cannot affirm the examiner’s rejection on
this ground as to claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11.
Regarding the rejection as it applies to claims 13, 14, and
16, the examiner correctly points out (answer, page 10) that
Chou discloses a semiconductor device comprising at least one
microcavity (17) within a layer (14, 15) of the device.
(Figures 1-5.)
The appellants urge that Chou’s opening 17 extends through
a plurality of layers rather than “being enclosed in a single
layer.” Again, this argued feature is not recited in the
claims.
As to claims 14 and 16, the examiner has adequately
addressed the limitations of these claims. (Answer, pages 13-
14.)
We therefore uphold this ground of rejection as it applies
to claims 13, 14, and 16.
Summary
In summary, our disposition of this appeal is as follows:
I. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
of appealed claims 2 and 3 “as containing subject matter which
was not described in the specification in such a way as to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007