Appeal No. 1998-1216
Application 08/356,194
Claims 20, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected over the
admitted prior art in view of Kumar or Asahina and further in
view of Hirose and further in view of Kawakami.
Finally, claims 27 and 28 stand rejected over the
prior art listed immediately above and further in view of
Sandhu.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejections.
OPINION
We will not sustain any of the rejections advanced
by the examiner on this appeal.
All of the appealed claims distinguish over the
admitted prior art by requiring that the first film be formed
by chemical vapor deposition and without exposing the first
film to air successively forming a second film by chemical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007