Appeal No. 1999-1539
Application 08/584,118
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 1 to 9, 13 and 14 by Sundaram.
The examiner rejects claims 1 to 3 as being anticipated
by Canon at page 4 of the examiner’s answer. The examiner
asserts, final rejection at page 4, that "substrate (7-6);
closure (7-5 and 7-3); gap layer (including 7-4 and 7-2);
patterned gap filler layer (7-1) having a topography inversely
corresponding with that of the gap layer so that the gap
between the planar surface of the closure and substrate is
substantially filled." However, we agree with appellants
that, brief at page 5, "a nonmetal layer
7-3 interposes layers 7-1 and 7-5, and does not have an
inverse topography. Neither layer 7-1 nor 7-3 meet the
limitations of being deposited on the planar surface of the
closure and substantially filling the gap between the closure
and gap layer deposited on the substrate." We also note that
in Figure 1 of the Canon reference there still exists gaps W1
and W between the substrate and the closure element. We,
2
therefore, also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 to 3 by Canon.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007