Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
we conclude that to the extent broadly cited at the end of claim
1, the reduced portion of radiation corresponding to the small
amount of light reaching the die would have been “relatively
uniform” underneath the pattern of the trenches. Note again the
depiction of the generic/master mask 110 at the bottom of Figure
2.
In view of these teachings and findings, we also conclude
that appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief with
respect to this rejection of claims 1 to 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 are misplaced. Although we agree with appellant’s basic
premise that absolutely no part or purpose of Pease is such to
reproduce any transmission of light under the tiles (that is
tiles 112 and 114 in representative Figure 1 of Pease also
depicted at the bottom of Figure 2 in generic/master mask 110),
clearly there is a relatively uniform portion of radiation
transmitted through the subresolution trenches by the small
amount of light that may be imaged on the die in accordance with
the above noted portion of column 5. Even in a normal operation
sense of Pease, when there is no light at all transmitted through
the trenches, the trench position would still be indicated by
contrast in accordance with the showing at the bottom of Figure 2
for the generic/master mask 110 shown there. As such, there
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007