Appeal No. 1999-1548
Application No. 08/859,629
we asked the parties to define and identify what a “planarization” layer is meant to cover
and why the applied references were deemed to suggest or not suggest such a
“planarization” layer.
Based on remarks received from appellants (Paper No. 44) and the examiner
(Paper No. 45), we issued a supplemental decision on July 29, 2002 (Paper No. 46),
wherein we sustained the rejection of claims 53-59, 62-64, 86-92 and 94-98 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but we did not sustain the rejection of claims 60, 61, 65-85 and 93 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasons are adequately set forth in Paper No. 46, and we need
not repeat them here.
While appellants’ request for reconsideration of January 10, 2002 (Paper No. 47)
was filed prior to our supplemental decision, it was entered into the file subsequent to
our supplemental decision, and we did not have the benefit of it when reaching our
decision of July 29, 2002.
However, we have now reviewed that request for reconsideration and find that it
does not differ from the request for reconsideration made in Paper No. 44. Since we
have already treated any such arguments and/or comments by appellants in our
supplemental decision, and appellants have not convinced us of any error in our
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007