Appeal No. 1997-0106
Application 07/792,482
(2) Claims 36-39, 44-47, 49-58, 60, 61, 63, 66-68 and 70
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on
enablement.
(3) Claims 36-39, 44-47, 49-58, 60, 61, 63, 66-68 and 70
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 36-39, 44-47, 49-58, 60, 61, 63, 66-68 and 70 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicants regards as the invention. According
to the examiner (Answer, p. 6):
Step (g) of claims 36, 56, and 66 recites "in the
absence of a photoimaging step, removing the bared
antihalation layer" however, Applicant previously
recites photoimaging steps in the process, steps
(d)-(f). It is not clear how step (g) can be
performed in the absence of a photoimaging step when
the process contains photoimaging steps recited
prior to the removal of the bared photoimaging
layer.
Appellants argue (Brief, p. 12):
From the claim format and the language used, it
would be abundantly clear to one skilled in the art
that the step of removing the antihalation layer in
step (g) in the absence of a photoimaging step meant
that the antihalation layer is not imaged in step
(g) to assist in its removal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007