Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
resist materials having such salts are unexpectedly superior to
resist materials containing tris substituted sulfonium salts
exemplified in the references applied by the examiner. In
essence, the argument and evidence advanced by the appellants
concerning the rejection under review correspond to the argument
and evidence discussed above. We consider this argument and
evidence unconvincing for the reasons set forth above and in our
attached decision.
As a consequence, we also will sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claims 6-8, 10 and 11 as being
unpatentable over Nguyen-Kim in view of Schwalm ‘037 as well as
the uncontested section 103 rejection of claims 8-10 over these
references and further in view of Yamada.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection
Concerning this rejection, the examiner concludes, inter
alia, that, “[s]ince the nitrogenous compounds recited in US‘787
[i.e., recited in the claims of Watanabe ‘787] and their effects
are well-known in the art, the omission of said nitrogenous
compounds with the consequent loss of their known effects in the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007