Appeal No. 2000-1112
Application No. 08/518,363
No. 30, filed October 12, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 33,
filed December 7, 1999) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 59, 62 through
64, and 68.
As the examiner notes (Answer, page 12), appellant "does not
dispute the examiner's contention that the apparatus and process
of use of the primary reference exemplifies each and every aspect
of the invention, except for the use of phase shift masks with
that apparatus." Appellant does not contest this assertion.
Accordingly, the only issue is whether it would have been obvious
to use the phase shift mask of Burggraaf in the methods/systems
of Muraki, Shiozawa I, Shiozawa II, and Suzuki. Furthermore,
appellant states (Brief, pages 8 and 9) that with regard to the
use of a phase shift mask, the texts of Shiozawa I, Shiozawa II,
and Suzuki are all identical to that of Muraki. Accordingly, we
will discuss only the combination of Muraki and Burggraaf.
Appellant asserts (Brief, page 6) that Muraki "expressly
considers the merits of a phase shifting mask and rejects them as
inappropriate." Appellant further argues that Burggraaf
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007