Appeal No. 2000-1587
Application 09/055,254
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lur et al. (Lur) 5,445,989 Aug. 29,
1995
Zheng et al. (Zheng) 5,728,621 Mar. 17,
1998
Perera 5,786,263 Jul. 28,
1998
(filed Apr. 4, 1995)
Stanley Wolf & Richard N. Tauber (Wolf 1), “Silicon
Processing for the VLSI Era, Vol. 1: Process Technology,”
Lattice Press, p. 184, 1986.
Stanley Wolf (Wolf 2), “Silicon Processing for the VLSI
Era, Vol. 2: Process Integration,” Lattice Press, pp. 227, 232
& 238, 1990.
Claims 1 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Lur,
Perera and Wolf [Wolf 1 and Wolf 2]. 2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
2Claims 1 and 18 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph and claims 1 through 18 were finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Paper No. 6, mailed February
24, 1999). Appellants filed an amendment after final
rejection (Paper No. 7, filed August 31, 1999) canceling claim
18 and providing arguments to overcome the claim rejections.
The Examiner approved entry of this amendment upon filing of a
Notice of Appeal and an Appeal Brief in an advisory action
(Paper No. 8, mailed September 3, 1999). The Examiner further
indicated that the § 112 rejection has been overcome by
Appellants’ response.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007