Appeal No. 1997-2016 Page 9
Application No. 08/196,126
are and must be of significantly smaller surface area than the substrate (18) in order to be3
accommodated within cavities (28) and, thus, cannot be considered as "having same surface
area" as the aligned substrate (18).
In an attempt to overcome the above-noted deficiencies of Hentz, the examiner, pointing
specifically to the disclosure of Hulderman in column 12, lines 15-37, directed to aligning and
bonding the photomasks (314, 316) in position about the photoresist laminated shim stock (300),
takes that position that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
employed the method and apparatus taught by Hentz et al. to bond substrates
having substantially the same surface area, since Hulderman et al. suggest
observing indicia through transparent portions of substrates to facilitate bonding
of laminae having substantially the same surface areas [answer, page 4].
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
Hentz apparatus is not capable of use for aligning and adhering substrates, at least one of which
is non-transparent, having approximately the same surface area and, thus, would not have been
motivated to use it in such a manner for manufacturing a photomask covered assembly as taught
by Hulderman. Further, given the very disparate teachings of Hentz and Hulderman, it is not
apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
3The substrate (18) must be sufficiently large to extend over the indicator marks (52, 54) on the prisms
(56), which fall well outside the cavities (28).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007