Appeal No. 96-0061
Application No. 08/018,313
experimentation is needed to determine the claimed
absorptivity. 3
We also reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons set forth
in the Brief. We only add that the prior art references
relied upon by the examiner do not describe, nor would have
suggested, coating a negative resist directly onto a layer
having a stepped surface as required by independent claims 1
and 8. The functional language “coating a negative resist
film . . . until the stepped surface of the layer has a flat
surface” recited in claims 1 and 8 requires that the negative
resist be directly on the layer having a stepped surface.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
3Note that only claims 2, 3 and 8 recite the absorptivity
of a negative resist material.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007