Appeal No. 95-1009
Application 07/858,632
above, the method of claim 1 merely calls for leveling and
polishing and these steps are described in the admitted prior
art. The method of claim 4 calls for controlling the
deposition rate in a manner known as lateral leveling followed
by a known polishing step (see the specification, page 15,
last paragraph, to page 16, line 19). Thus the admitted prior
art is considered to describe the subject matter of claims 1
and 4 within the meaning of § 102(b).
The methods of claims 2 and 5 require an additional
deposition of the filling material. This step has not been
found to be admittedly known in the prior art as recited on
pages 1-5 of the specification. The examiner fails to point
out where this step is described in the admitted prior art
(see the answer, page 6). Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of the
admitted prior art cannot be sustained since every limitation
of these claims is not found in the admitted prior art as
applied by the examiner. See In re Bond, supra.
C. The Rejection in view of Kaanta
The method of claim 6 calls for the improvement in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007