Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
anticipated by Kaanta. Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected2
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Olmer. We affirm the stated
rejections over Wolf, Kaanta and Olmer. We affirm the stated
rejection of claims 1 and 4 over the admitted prior art but
reverse the rejection of claims 2 and 5 over the admitted
prior art.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter a new ground of rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Olmer.
DECISION
A. The Rejection in view of Wolf
The method of appealed claim 1 requires, in a method
where grooves formed in a substrate are filled up with a
filling material deposited by a process in which etching and
deposition are achieved concurrently, the improvement
comprising (1) leveling of the height of portions of the
filling material deposited on portions of the substrate other
2 The final rejection of claim 6 under § 102(b) was over Kaanta or Lasky (U.S.
Patent No. 4,735,679). However, the examiner withdrew Lasky as being “cumulative”
(answer, page 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007