Appeal No. 95-2579
Application 08/134,707
From this teaching the examiner concludes that Chion teaches appellant’s step (C) of the claimed method.
The examiner further concludes that the following disclosure on page 5, lines 32-34 of Chion teaches step
(D), i.e., forming a more concentrated solution:
Partial neutralization of the free carboxylic acid groups of the polyamic acid may be
accomplished by reacting one equivalent of a basic organic compound such as an amine
compound such as triethylamine to one equivalent of the polyamic acid before incorpora-
tion of the polyamic acid in the photoresist solution.
We do not share the examiner’s view of the teachings of Chion as it relates to steps (C) and (D) of
appellant’s claimed method.
We find that Chion does not teach partially imidizing the polyamic acid before it is applied to the
substrate. While Chion does disclose that the partial imidization may be accomplished during the coating
process, Chion does not suggest or teach explicitly or implicitly that the partial imidization may be
accomplished before the coating process. As for step (D) of appellant’s method, the examiner has failed
to explain how the teachings of Chion on page 5, lines 32-34 would have led a person having ordinary skill
in the art to form a more “concentrated solution” as interpreted in light of appellant’s disclosure.
The teachings of Peterson, Rhee, Yamada and Lee do not make up for the deficiencies of Chion.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness to sustain
the rejection of the claims 1-6 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chion in view of Peterson or Rhee,
the rejection of claims 7, 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chion in view of Peterson or Rhee and further
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007