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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007