Appeal No. 2000-1082 4
Application No. 08/727,303
rejection. We agree with the examiner that the rejection of the claims on the grounds of
anticipation and obviousness are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm these rejections.
With respect to the rejection over Dobson, the appellants deem that “claims 1, 4,
5, 7, and 9-15 stand or fall together.” See Brief, page 4. In as much as the only claims
remaining under rejection include claims 1 and 9, 1-15, they stand or fall together. 2
Accordingly, we select claim 1, an independent process claim as representative of the
claimed subject matter and limit our consideration thereto. See 37 CFR
§1.192(c)(7)(1997).
The Rejection under § 112.
It is the examiner’s position that, “not anywhere in the specification do Applicants
show the details and conditions of such pressure and temperature such that the layers can
be deposited over the recesses. It is not clear from the evidence of record how one of
ordinary skill in the art would perform of [sic, or] carry out the process based upon the
mere disclosure of raised temperature and pressure, this condition appears to be critical
such that the first layer deforms without melting to fill the recesses.” See the Final
Rejection, page 2, paper No. 21 dated, February 01, 1999. In addition to the aforesaid
rejection on the grounds of lack of enablement, the examiner objected to the incorporation
of the subject matter from the Dobson application as being “new matter.” See Answer,
pages 4-6. With respect to this rejection, we disagree with the examiners analysis and
2The rules provide for grouping of claim only in appellants’ principal Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007