Appeal No. 1998-2260
Application No. 08/535,685
we take claim 4 as the representative of this group.
Appellant argues [brief, page 3] that “there is no teaching of
forming a metallic film over substrates . . . and then etching
back an opening for alignment purposes. Harvey only shows the
use of transparent slits and zone plates on the surfaces.”
However, we find that Harvey teaches that “[t]he transparent
slits (openings) . . . can conveniently be made by
photolithographic masking and etching simultaneously . . . on
photomasks . . .” (col. 3, lines 60 to 64.) Therefore, we
sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 4 and its grouped
claims 5, and 14 to 16. As for claims 20 to 25 of this group,
even though they are grouped with claim 4 and are not argued
separately, they depend on independent claim 18, which we have
found above to be unobvious. For that reason, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 20 to 25.
In summary, we have affirmed the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 to 5 and 14 to 17 and reversed the decision
rejecting claims 18 to 28.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007