Appeal No. 1997-2593
Application No. 08/160,290
specification. However, none of the comparative examples
(specification,
page 18) involve the use of solvent blends, much less the
specifically described prior art solvents blends of Liu.
Thus, appellants’ have made no comparisons with the closest
prior art compositions.
In light of the above, we agree with the examiner that
the subject matter defined by appealed claims 1 and 10 would
have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, we sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection based on
Liu. Essentially for the reasons set forth in the
answer, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
appealed claims based on the combined teachings of Uetani and
Liu. Basically, we agree with the examiner that based on the
relevant disclosures in Liu, "[t]he skilled artisan would have
found it prima facie obvious to utilize the solvent mixture
disclosed therein [in Liu] in the photoresist composition of
Uetani et al. [Uetani] with a reasonable expectation of
achieving the same or similar results since the solvents in
each reference are being utilized in a quinine diazide/alkali
soluble resin containing composition" that is to be applied to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007