Appeal 2007-1097
Application 10/230,593
3. Claims 8-10, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 28
1 Claims 8-10 depend from claim 1. The Examiner finds that the
2 subject matter of claims 8-10 is inherently disclosed in Gupta because Gupta
3 treats the same materials in the same manner as the Appellant. Final Office
4 Action dated January 20, 2006 at 3-4; Answer at 4-5.
5 With respect to claim 1, the Appellant argues that Gupta does not
6 teach the same materials and instead teaches other mixtures, such as a N2-
7 O2-He mixture. On this basis alone, the Appellant argues that the
8 Examiner’s basis for inherency is untenable. Appeal Brief at 11.
9 As discussed above, Gupta clearly describes an etching process using
10 the same materials recited in claim 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that
11 the subject matter of claims 8-10 is inherently disclosed in Gupta.
12 The Appellant does not argue the patentability of claims 18, 19, 21,
13 22, 27, and 28 separately. Therefore, claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, and 28 stand
14 with claims 8-10.
15 F. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16 The Appellant has not sustained its burden of showing that the
17 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8-11, and 18-28 under 35 U.S.C.
18 § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gupta.
19 G. DECISION
20 The rejection of claims 1, 8-11, and 18-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
21 as being anticipated by Gupta is AFFIRMED.
22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
23 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013