Appeal No. 1997-1380
Application 08/301,508
that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art in view of Pomerantz to provide the method
disclosed by Helinski with a planarizing step as broadly
recited in claim 14 is well taken. Pomerantz’s disclosure of
using machining unit 590 to trim the top surface of layer 550
to a precise flat uniform thickness would have furnished the
artisan with ample motivation or suggestion for the proposed
modification of the Helinski method. Therefore, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 14 as
being unpatentable over Helinski in view of Pomerantz.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further defines the
planarizing step as being performed during the moving step
(recited in parent claim 13) in a spaced apart relationship
relative to the first jet and the dispenser. There is simply
nothing in the combined teachings of Helinski and Pomerantz
which would have suggested performing the planarizing step
during this
time. Thus, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007