Appeal No. 2002-0094 Page 4
Application No. 09/346,435
etching portions of the dielectric layer not covered by the patterned mask with an etch
selective to the dielectric layer relative to the photoresist layer; and
removing the photoresist layer from the electrically conductive sheath layer during a
plasma process, the electrically conductive sheath layer providing mechanical and electrical
shielding for the dielectric layer.
OPINION
With respect to claims 9, 12-14, 20-23, 25 and 26, we reverse. We affirm with respect to
claims 15-19. In so doing, we note that there are three independent claims, claims 9, 15, and 20,
and that each of these claims varies widely from the others in scope.
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that
each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the combination of prior art
references or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). This holds true for
each claim subject to rejection. The errors in the present case arise due to the treatment of claims
of differing scope together such that various limitations in particular claims have been
overlooked. This becomes apparent upon a review which begins with a consideration of each
independent claim separately.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007