Appeal No. 1997-2285
Application No. 08/311,480
rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 2 is sustained
because Webb discloses the use of organic polymers for pad
film 26 (column 2, line 58 through column 3, line 4).
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 3 is sustained
because Webb discloses the use of a fluoropolymer for pad film
26 (column 2, lines 67 and 68).
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 7, Webb
discloses that micromirrors are micromechanical devices
(column 1, lines 13 through 23). As a result thereof, the
obviousness rejection of claim 7 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 4 through 6 is
reversed because Webb neither teaches nor would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art a pad film of inorganic
material.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 4 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed as to claim 7, and is reversed as to claims 4 through
6. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007