Appeal No. 95-3463
Application No. 08/139,260
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant has requested reconsideration of our decision
dated November 6, 1997, wherein the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 20 under the
grounds of res judicata was reversed, and the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 was affirmed as to claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7, 11 through 13 and 16 through 18, and was reversed
as to claims 4, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 20.
Appellant argues (Request, page 2) that “steps b, f and j
of method claim 16 each recite ‘sputtering zinc and tin in a
reactive atmosphere comprising oxygen to deposit a . . .
zinc/tin oxide film on . . .’,” and that “[t]he feature of a
metal oxide film comprising an oxide reaction product of zinc
and tin was found by the Board to be a patentable feature of
allowed dependent claims 4 and 14.” Appellant acknowledges
(Request, page 2) that “the patentable features of steps b, f,
and j of method claim 16 were not argued by appellant;
however, the Board in making its decision should not overlook
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007