Appeal No. 1996-3909 Page 3
Application No. 08/115,440
Chu et al. (Chu) 4,682,143 Jul. 21,
1987
Sparks 4,732,874 Mar. 22,
1988
Claims 4 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Paulson in view of Chu et al. and
Sparks.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Paulson in view of Chu et al., Sparks and
Vugts.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellant’s viewpoint that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those
reasons advanced by appellant, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
The examiner (final rejection and examiner’ answer),
primarily relies on the teachings of Sparks regarding rapid
thermal annealing in combination with Paulson in an attempt at
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007