Appeal No. 2000-2143 Page 3
Application No. 08/743,405
Opinion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 5
and 16 to 20 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by or in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Bhatia.
In support of the rejection, the examiner states:
Bhatia discloses a multi layer wiring system
having all of the features claimed: see FIGS
1-6. It is arguable that Bhatia does not
disclose either metal strip repair lines are
defined by testing or metal strip repair
lines are formed by lithography. However,
presence of process limitations in product
claims, which product does not otherwise
patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot
impart patentability to that product. [answer
at page 4]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007