Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
artisan would have considered this cost reduction to be
particularly desirable for resists which need not possess the
high sensitivity and resolution that is achieved via Watanabe’s
nitrogenous compounds.
As an alternative position which is independent of her
obviousness conclusion discussed above, the examiner contends
that the appellants’ “consisting essentially of” claim language
does not exclude the nitrogenous compounds recited in the claims
of Watanabe ‘787 (e.g., see page 41 of the answer as well as page
13 of the last Office action (i.e., Paper No. 18) mailed March
18, 1998). From our perspective, this last mentioned position
also has merit. For this reason and because the appellants have
not specifically contested this position in their brief or reply
brief, we accept the position as well taken.
As a consequence of these circumstances, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 6-12 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claim 8-10,
16, 17 and 19-22 of Watanabe ‘787 in view of Yamada with either
Murata ‘957 or Murata ‘695.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007