Appeal No. 2005-2239
Application No. 10/448,905
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Briefs for
Appellants’ arguments there against.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner, we reverse the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We reverse the rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tsai.
However, we affirm the remaining prior art rejections.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH REJECTION
Claims 1 to 17 and 21 to 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph as containing subject matter which was
not described in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art
to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the Examiner
states, Answer, p. 3, “while being enabling for etching
processes which operate within parameters which avoid Ni
contamination, [the specification] does not reasonably provide
enablement for [the claims] etching processes lacking the
disclosed parameters necessary to avoid Ni contamination.” The
Examiner further states “Appellants have provided enablement for
the use of the claimed gas plasma composition within etching
processes, characterized by low flow rates and low process
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007