Appeal No. 1999-1539
Application 08/584,118
any other evidence, to show that gap 304 in Sundaram is filled
with a non-interactive material as asserted by the examiner.
From Figures 3, 5 and 6, it is clear that Sundaram shows a gap
304 existing between the gap layer of the closure element and
the gap layer of the substrate element.
Further, the examiner asserts that the examiner is going
to call 212 of Sundaram as the claimed substrate and label 308
as the claimed closure element. In fact, the examiner asserts
that he is going to consider gap 304 as a part of the closure
element, and that element 312 is deposited on the closure
element so that it provides the topography along the gap that
inversely corresponds to the nonplanar topography of the
nonplanar geometry comprising of elements 302 and 306 on the
substrate 212, see Figure 3 (answer, pages 2-3). Even if we
assume that the examiner is justified in calling element 308
as the closure element and element 212 as the substrate, which
is contrary to what Sundaram calls them, we still do not see
how the examiner is justified in making gap 304 as a part of
the closure element 308. Furthermore, we do not see how
element 312 is deposited on the substrate as recited in the
claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007