Appeal No. 95-3170
Application No. 07/813,749
(2) exposing a photoresist using a reduction optical system.
In the words of the examiner, the teachings of Diemeer "differ
from those of the applicant in that the applicant teaches the
use of similar photoresists and the exposure of the
photoresists using a reduction optical system" (page 4 of
Answer). However, the examiner has failed to explain in what
specific respects the photoresists of appellants and Diemeer
are "similar." Lacking in the examiner's position is any
rationale that establishes that the photoresists of Diemeer or
the admitted prior art have the presently claimed "non-linear
optical property which increases with respect to increasing
light intensity." In the absence of such rationale, it cannot
be reasonably concluded that the claimed photoresist would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view
of the photoresist of Diemeer, notwithstanding their purported
"similarity." Likewise, the examiner's statement that "[t]he
use of the reduction optical system is disclosed in the
specification and is known to be used with similar
photoresists as those of the claimed invention" (page 4 of
Answer), is without the requisite factual support. Again, the
examiner has not established the specific similarity between
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007