Appeal No. 95-4115 Page 4
Application No. 07/932,714
brief for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the examiner and the appellant concerning the
above-noted rejections.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejections
presented by the examiner in this appeal.
On the record of this appeal, it is our view that the
examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter
defined by the appealed claims. In this regard, all of the
claims on appeal describe a method requiring several specific
steps including selectively forming a silicon dioxide phase
shifter via liquid phase epitaxial growth on a part of a
chemically vapor deposited thin film of silicon dioxide that
is exposed via apertures of a photo-resist film previously
applied over the surface of the chemically vapor deposited
thin film.
Both of the rejections advanced by the examiner rely on
Okamoto for teaching the manufacture of a phase shifting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007