Appeal No. 1998-1660
Application No. 08/108,499
Sorab K. Ghandhi (Ghandhi), VLSI Fabrication Techniques, 86-
90,
98-100 (John Wiley & Sons, 1983).
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected as being based on an
inadequate disclosure under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ghandhi. In a separate rejection,
claims 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers the combination
of Ghandhi and Sze with respect to claim 11-14, and adding
Clarke to the basic combination with respect to claim 15.1
1As a result of a Decision on Petition, the Examiner’s
original statement of the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in the Examiner’s Answer was vacated and restated as a
new ground of rejection in a first Supplemental Examiner’s
Answer dated March 19, 1997.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007