Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
respective ranges seem to us to be well known in the art from our
assessment of the prior art relied upon by the examiner, as well
as appellants’ assessment of the prior art in the early pages
of the specification of the disclosed invention. Therefore, we
reverse the outstanding rejection of certain claims under
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
On the other hand, we do sustain the rejection of claims
1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Pease essen-
tially for the reasons set forth by the examiner. The examiner’s
reference to column 3, lines 43 to 53 and column 4, line 64 to
column 5, line 31 is significant. We also extend this column 5
reference to the end of the sub-topic discussion at line 48.
The claimed blank/reticle in independent claim 1 is said at
column 2, lines 3 to 5 of Pease to directly correspond to the
term “mask” in Pease. Indeed, the non-customized masks are
generic or master masks in Pease. The entire background of the
invention at columns 1 and 2 of Pease corresponds to the use of
such reticle being used by lithographic printers for producing a
pattern on a radiation sensitive layer of an integrated circuit
structure. Claim 1 requires a “region” which comprises a
“pattern of features”, which as disclosed, may be more specifi-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007