Appeal No. 96-0061
Application No. 08/018,313
etching the insulating layer by an anisotropic etching
using the resist film as a mask to thereby form contact holes
in the insulating layer.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
Nanda et al. (Nanda) 4,978,419 Dec. 18,
1990
Ehrlich 5,310,624 May 10,
1994
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows : 2
(1) Claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for lacking an enabling disclosure for the claimed
subject matter; and
(2) Claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nanda and Ehrlich.
We reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for
essentially those reasons set forth by appellants in the Brief
and the Reply Brief. We only add that the examiner’s
assertions at page 4 of the Answer and pages 1 through 3 of
the Supplemental Answer (Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s
[sic, Appellants’] Reply Brief) do not demonstrate that undue
2According to the examiner (Answer, page 2), both the
rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, had been withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007