Appeal No. 1998-2405
Application 08/351,093
resists” (answer, pages 7-8). As discussed above with respect
to the rejection over Franke in view of Nakagawa and Ozaki,
the examiner has not established that these references would
have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a
reasonable expectation of success in using ion beam
irradiation to form a film which is resistant to Franke’s ion
beam assisted etching. Similarly, the examiner has not
established that the applied references would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using ion beam
irradiation to form Tanemura’s film. Hence, we reverse the 3
rejection over Tanemura in view of Franke, Nakagawa, Ozaki and
Takahashi.
Obviousness-type double patenting rejection over
the claims of Iwasaki in view of Franke
The examiner relies upon only claims 4-6 of Iwasaki
(answer, page 8). These claims recite methods of preparing a
sample for observation comprising irradiating a surface of the
sample with a scanning focused ion beam to form a thin film on
3 The examiner relies upon Takahashi only for a teaching
of using a particular technique to determine etching depth
(answer, pages 7-8), and not for any teaching which remedies
the above-discussed deficiencies in the other applied
references.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007