Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
taught at least by the small amount of light referenced in the
above-identified portion of Pease at column 5, lines 26 to 31.
Note the 10 percent transmission in Smith at column 3, lines
35 to 38, the general reference in the summary of the invention
in Smith at column 2, lines 5 to 8 of a relatively low percentage
and a similar low percentage mentioned at column 5, line 69 to
column 6, line 3. Additionally, this percentage recited in these
claims is encompassed by the admitted prior art as mentioned at
the bottom of page 2 of the specification as filed.
As to the identical recitation in dependent claims 11 and
12 of the broadly defined “approximate” size of the pattern
features, note again the teachings with respect to them at
columns 3 to 5 as discussed with respect to the dimensions of
the trenches in Pease.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under
Section 103 overemphasize Pease’s teachings, fail to consider all
of them and only passingly discuss those of Smith, while losing
sight of what he has admitted is in the art anyway. However, we
part company with the examiner’s views as to claims 19 to 31,
essentially agreeing with appellant’s arguments, with
respect to the features in these claims. Both the trenches and
tile regions of Pease are not reasonably taught or suggested to
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007