Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate
written description, we will not sustain this rejection.
It is the examiner’s position that there is no support in
the original disclosure for the second metal layer having “a
monotonically decreasing width,” as now claimed. Both
appellant and the examiner agree that the original disclosure
recited a “step-like” design and/or “a non-uniform width” when
describing the second layer. However, it is the examiner’s
contention that step-like and/or non-uniform do not equate to
“monotonically decreasing,” as now claimed. We disagree.
As seen in Figure 10, the buses, or second layers, 82, 84
and 86 are, indeed, step-like or of non-uniform width. The
question is whether these layers are of a width that is
“monotonically decreasing.” By the examiner’s own definition,
3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007