Appeal No. 95-3017
Application 07/952,061
be subresolution even though the trench region may be a
subresolution transmitting region. Smith’s teachings and
suggestions do not appear to us to cure this defect of Pease.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 19 to 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
New Issues Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) and (d)
Claims 15 to 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light
of the collective teachings of Pease and Smith. As to these
claims, there is a feature commonly recited in these claims of
the phase-shifting capability as a function of the thickness of
the underlying base region which has been discussed earlier. We
note the specification page 2 admitted prior art discussion with
respect to this feature, the brief summary of the invention at
page 2 of the brief discussing the prior art, the specific phase
shifting capability of the optical embodiment in Smith with
respect to Figure 7 beginning at column 5, line 56 to the end of
Smith’s patent.
In light of these findings and in view of the provisions
of 37 CFR § 1.196(d), we make a recommendation to the primary
examiner that objected to/allowed claims 13 and 14 be rejected
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007