Appeal No. 1998-0970
Application 07/995,325
It is assumed that these steps are conventional. Appellants2
do not argue steps c) to f) as differences and, thus, we do
not consider them. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) (1994) ("For
each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the argument shall specify
the errors in the rejection, the specific limitations in the
rejected claims which are not described in the prior art
relied on in the rejection, and shall explain how such
limitations render the claimed subject matter unobvious over
the prior art."). Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It
is not the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art."). Perhaps the
reason these limitations are not argued is that the admitted
prior art of Figures 2(a)-(c) indicates that these steps were
conventional. Appellants' invention is said to be the method
of filling the contact hole with an interposed layer of boron
to reduce the contact resistance (specification, p. 1).
Tsunashima discloses (col. 2, lines 40-47):
If the steps are conventional, the Examiner's2
rejection should say so to indicate that the steps have not
been ignored.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007