Appeal No. 1998-2263
Application No. 08/692,612
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 since the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of
anticipation or obviousness.
With respect to the rejection under Shikata, the examiner cites to columns 7-10 to
support the "soft macros" and "hard macros." (See answer at page 13.) But, in our view,
the macros of Shikata are equivalent to the objects of the instant claims and not the
constraints of the two minimums. According to Shikata, the aspect ratio of the macro may
be changed, not the separation distance as recited in the language of claim 28. Therefore,
the examiner's reliance on the soft and hard macros is misplaced, and we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 since the examiner has not set forth a
prima facie case of anticipation.
Furthermore, at the oral hearing, appellant argued that none of the prior art
references teach or suggest the use of two minimums (an absolute constraint and a
desired constraint which may be violated). We agree with appellant. Moreover, the
examiner has pointed to nothing in any of the prior art which is relied upon to teach or
suggest these claim limitations.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007