Appeal No. 95-2312
Application No. 07/897,870
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 22 and 49 as well as nonargued
dependent claims 3, 5, 10-16, 19-21, 23, 24, 26-29, 32-36, 38,
39, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50 and 51 as being unpatentable over
Hoffman in view of Dickey.
As for argued dependent claims 6-8, we share the
appellant’s perception that the applied prior art contains no
teaching or suggestion of the features recited therein, and on
the record before us the examiner has proffered no insight on
this matter. Under these circumstances, we cannot sustain his
rejection of these claims.
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 48, 52 and 53 and concomitantly claims 18,
31, 45 and 54 which depend therefrom. It is the examiner’s
basic position that it would have been obvious to combine
Hoffman and Dickey is such a manner as to obtain the subject
matter defined by these claims including the removing and
2(...continued)
gas plasma during sputtering” (claim 1) must be interpreted as
defining nonsputtering regions “which are exposed to said gas
plasma during sputtering” but for the presence of the
aforementioned insulating material.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007