Appeal No. 2001-1064
Application No. 09/164,069
indication that the above-discussed approaches are part of
different and alternative embodiments is provided at column 2,
lines 39-45 in Lu.
From the above disclosure in Lu, it is apparent to us that the
only instance in which parylene is used is in a non-pore filling
embodiment. In our view, the adhesion enhancing surface treatment
of the parylene embodiment in Lu would prevent a composite layer of
parylene and porous silica from being formed as required by
Appellants’ claims.
We have also reviewed the Sivaramakrishnam reference, applied
by the Examiner in combination with Lu, and find nothing which
would overcome the deficiencies of Lu discussed above. Although
Sivaramakrishnam provides a general discussion (column 6, lines 18-
49) of the use of parylene in integrated circuit fabrication, there
is no indication from the Examiner as to how and in what manner the
Lu reference might be modified to result in Appellants’ claimed
structure, in particular the claimed composite layer of parylene
and porous silica.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art Lu and Sivaramakrishnam
references, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007