Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
of error. In addition, we note that Erie and Kim expressly
disclose aluminum metal pads as claimed.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 23
is sustained.
Claim 27 ) Barber, Erie, Kim, and Stocker
Appellants argue that Stocker does not discuss metal
sputtering and does not overcome the deficiencies of Barber,
Erie, and Kim (Br19-21).
This argument does not address the separate patentability of
claim 27, but basically argues that Stocker does not overcome the
deficiencies of the rejection of claim 21 and, so, the rejection
of claim 27 should be reversed because it depends on claim 21.
This argument is not persuasive because we have sustained the
rejection of claim 21 over Barber, Erie, and Kim.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no
motivation supporting the combination (Br20-21).
However, Appellants fail to address or show error in the
Examiner's reasons at FR9-10. Merely alleging lack of motivation
without addressing the Examiner's reasons is not persuasive
argument. The Examiner's reasoning is sustained absent a showing
of error.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 27
is sustained.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007