Appeal No. 2000-0170
Application No. 08/811,124
on the contact surface of the silicone layer,” and “a plug . . .
being in contact at an end thereof with said metal silicide
layer.” Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 46 through 48, and 57 through 60 over Lee, Wilson and
Honeycutt.
In conclusion, we have sustained the anticipation rejection
of claims 41, 49 through 51, and 52 through 56 over Lee and the
obviousness rejection of claim 42 over Lee and Wilson. However,
we have not sustained the anticipation rejection of claims 41,
42, 49 through 51 and 52 through 56 over Yoda, nor the
obviousness rejection of claims 43 and 44 over Lee and Honeycutt,
of claims 43 through 45, and 57 through 60 over Yoda and
Honeycutt, and of claims 46 through 48, and 57 through 60 over
Lee, Wilson and Honeycutt.
New Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
for lack of enablement. Claim 43 is inconsistent with claim 41
in view of the disclosure at page 13, lines 19 through 21, where
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007