Appeal No. 95-3017 Application 07/952,061 This feature argued by the examiner is a stated feature in the abstract of the invention of Smith as well as one developed at columns 1 and 2 of Smith. There are, however, more compelling reasons for the combin- ability of the references maintained within both references in a complementary manner. The alternative embodiments heading at the bottom of column 7 of Pease indicates its appropriateness to masking utilizing masks appropriate to X-ray methodologies as well as to the optical-light methodologies which are the basis of the principal disclosure in Pease. In a complementary sense, Smith’s teachings focus upon X-ray lithographic replication approaches in most of the figures and columns. However, Figure 7 and the discussion beginning at column 5 to the end of this patent focus upon optical and ultraviolet radiation approaches. Note the discussion beginning at column 5, line 56 of Smith. Thus, it is clear to us that the artisan would have considered the teachings of Smith as applicable as an obvious enhancement to those of Pease and vice-versa. This combinability was necessary by the examiner to reach the phase-shifting feature at the end of independent claim 7 on appeal. Clearly, both embodiments of Smith teach that phase- shifting is a normal part of the lithographic mask fabrication 9Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007