Appeal No. 97-1057
Application 08/160,298
conclusion of obviousness is not supported by the record, we
do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 16 and 57.
Claims 19, 22 and 25 recite a specific mask signal in
a manner similar to claim 16. The examiner’s rejection of
these claims is supported in the same manner as the rejection
of claim 16. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Section
103 rejection of these claims for the same reasons just
discussed. Claims 60, 63 and 66 are grouped with these
claims. Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 27 depend from
one of claims 16, 19, 22 and 25 and incorporate the
limitations just discussed. Claims 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67
and 68 depend from one of claims 57, 60, 63 and 66 and
incorporate the limitations just discussed. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of any of these
claims.
Claims 34 and 36 recite that the mask is formed from a
repetition of or replication of a pattern. The examiner
argues that the Chu mask generator meets this claim recitation
while appellants argue that the insertion of 1's in Chu does
not perform the claimed repeated digital pattern. We agree
with appellants that the examiner has not demonstrated how the
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007