Appeal No. 96-2261
Application 08/026,669
1992).
The motivation relied upon by the examiner for combining
the references comes solely from the description of
appellant’s invention in his specification. Thus, the
examiner used impermissible hindsight when rejecting the
claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel, 276 F.2d 393,
396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960).
The steps of exposure to ultraviolet light and applying
resist developer are included in all of appellant’s
independent claims. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of any of the claims.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 17-21, 23,
25-27, 29, 30 and 32 over Bardina in view of Solymar, claims
22 and 31 over Bardina in view of Solymar and Cherry, and
claims 24 and 28 over Bardina and Solymar in view of Tomisawa,
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007