Appeal 2006-2992
Application 10/073,710
100 nanometers (nm) on a surface of a substrate (Br. 3). A copy of
illustrative independent claim 1 may be found in the “Claims Appendix”
attached to Appellants’ Brief.
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Asmussen (Asmussen ‘668) US 4,585,668 Apr. 29, 1986
Asmussen (Asmussen ‘293) US 4,727,293 Feb. 23, 1988
Asmussen (Asmussen ‘900) US 4,906,900 Mar. 06, 1990
Herb US 5,273,790 Dec. 28, 1993
Asmussen (Asmussen ‘103) US 5,311,103 May 10, 1994
Gruen US 6,592,839 B2 Jul. 15, 2003
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gruen in view of Asmussen ‘103, Asmussen
‘668, Asmussen ‘900, or Asmussen ‘293 (Answer 3-8).1 Claims 13 and 18
stand rejected under § 103(a) over the references listed above further in view
of Herb (Answer 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 19 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
claims 1, 2, and 4 of Asmussen ‘668 in view of Gruen (Answer 8) or claims
22-27 of Asmussen ‘668 in view of Gruen (Answer 9).
1 For purposes of judicial economy, we have grouped the Examiner’s
separate rejections since each rejection involves the same claims, the same
primary reference (Gruen), and a secondary reference to Asmussen (either
‘103, ‘668, ‘900, or ‘293). See the Answer 3, 4, 6, and 7. Similarly, we
have grouped the rejections of claims 13 and 18 over the references as listed
above further in view of Herb (Answer 4, 5, 6, and 7).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013