Appeal No. 96-2085
Application No. 08/301,536
nitride protective layer prevents contamination of the exposed
sidewalls of the insulation layers in the window.
Appellants submit at page 7 of the Brief that the appealed
claims do not stand or fall together, but claims 9-16 are drawn
to a first embodiment of the invention whereas claims 22-27 are
drawn to a second embodiment of the invention. Since appellants
have not presented separate arguments for patentability for any
of the dependent claims, and claims 14 and 27 have been canceled,
claims 9-13, 15 and 16 stand or fall together, as a group, as
does the group of claims 22-26.
Appealed claims 9-11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over the admitted prior art in view of Udo and
Takayama. Claims 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the stated combination of references
further in view of Motonami.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 9-11,
12, 13, 15 and 16 over the admitted prior art in view of Udo and
Takayama. We agree with appellants that the collective teachings
of the references do not teach or suggest the claimed steps of
providing the silicon nitride protective layer over the sidewalls
of the fuse window and the exposed portion of the fuse before an
opening is made in the protective layer over the fuse to allow
the fuse to be cut with a laser. According to the examiner,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007