Appeal No. 2001-1814
Application 09/092,115
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-3 based on
the teachings of Auda and Wolf. These claims stand or fall
together as a single group [brief, page 3]. The examiner cites
Auda as teaching a method of fabrication of an integrated circuit
which meets the claimed invention except that Auda does not
explicitly disclose a patterned photoresist without linewidth
reduction to form interconnects over the gates. The examiner
notes, however, that these conventional processes are notoriously
obvious as shown by Wolf. The examiner asserts that because
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007