Appeal No. 1997-2593
Application No. 08/160,290
"picking and choosing may be required to meet certain claim
embodiments", and we think that this is the case here.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s "anticipation"
rejection. We hasten to add that we agree with the examiner
that the relevant prior art disclosures in Liu referred to
above establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
subject matter defined by appealed claims 1 and 10 which has
not been rebutted by objective evidence of nonobviousness.
Hence, we sustain the examiner’s alternatively stated 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on Liu.
In traversing the examiner’s rejections of the appealed
claims, appellants assert that Liu fails to disclose "a
positive resist composition" as recited in the preamble of the
appealed claims. See the brief at page 11. Liu clearly
indicates that the prior art photosensitive coating
composition is "positive working". However, appellants
apparently believe that because Liu’s composition is used in
the production of a color proofing film whereas appellants’
composition is ultimately used in the field of integrated
circuits, the preambular claim language serves to distinguish
the claimed composition from that of Liu’s. We find, however,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007