Ex parte VAN DEN BROEK et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-4442                                                         
          Application 08/353,040                                                       

               The Examiner relies on Appellants' admitted prior art                   
          (APA) that laser trimming of resistors was known                             
          (specification, page 1, line 25, to page 2, line 2, describing               
          U.S. Patent 4,907,341 to Chapel, Jr. et al. (Chapel)) and the                
          following prior art references:                                              
               Mcquaid et al. (Mcquaid)       4,746,896             May                
          24, 1988                                                                     
               Drabkin                  5,039,976          August 13,                  
          1991                                                                         
               Sahagen                  5,088,329        February 18,                  
          1992                                                                         
               de Wit                   5,448,103        September 5,                  
          1995                                                                         
                              (effective filing date May 19,                           
          1992)                                                                        

               Claims 2 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(e) as               
          anticipated by de Wit or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.                
           103(a) as being unpatentable over de Wit in view of the APA.               
               Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) as               
          being unpatentable over de Wit, APA, further in view of                      
          Mcquaid.3                                                                    



            In the Final Rejection, the Examiner rejected3                                                                       
          claims 3-5 over de Wit, APA, Mcquaid, and Sahagen.  Sahagen                  
          was applied only against claim 4 to show TiW as a bonding                    
          agent.  The rejection of claim 4 and the reliance on Sahagen                 
          have been withdrawn.                                                         
                                        - 3 -                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007