Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
understood how this film can be considered, in any way, shape or
form, to be a “bottom wall” of a concave portion.
Since the examiner has not adequately addressed the portion
of claim 7 requiring a final bottom wall to be located
immediately above the connection conductive layer and shown,
convincingly, how this claim limitation is taught or suggested by
the applied references, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 7 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As a matter of completeness, however, we note that we do not
find persuasive appellants’ argument [brief - page 9] that
Fischer does not disclose the claimed “connection conductive
layer embedded in and completely covered by said insulator
layer.” Element 12 of Fischer is clearly “embedded” in
insulator, or dielectric, layer 13. We find no requirement in
the claim that the bottom surface of element 12 be covered by
layer 13 and do not construe the terms “embedded” or “completely
covered” so narrowly. But, even if so required, we find no
reason why the two insulating layers 11 and 13, of Fischer,
together, cannot be said to constitute “an insulator layer,” as
claimed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007