Appeal No. 1997-0106
Application 07/792,482
vacuum but instead must be read in the light of the
specification).
For the reasons set forth above, the subject matter
defined by the claims is particular and definite. Therefore,
the rejection of claims 36-39, 44-47, 49-58, 60, 61, 63, 66-68
and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
B. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
1. Enablement
According to the examiner, "the disclosure is enabling
only for claims limited to the disclosed methods of altering
the
surface of the underlying substrate, such as etching."
Answer, pp. 5-6. Presumably, the relevant claim language is
the phrase "altering the underlying substrate" recited in
subparagraph (h) of claims 36, 56 and 66.
Appellants argue that "[t]he art is fully aware of how a
substrate is altered following photolithographic mask
formation" (Brief, p. 11) and rely on several publications in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007