Appeal No. 2002-0094 Page 10
Application No. 09/346,435
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of unpatentability with
respect to the subject matter of claims 15-19 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellant.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to a second embodiment of the invention as shown in Figure 2. That
embodiment involves depositing and patterning a photoresist layer over the conductive sheath
layer and etching the uncovered portions of the conductive sheath layer and underlying dielectric
layers in two selective etching steps. The photoresist is removed from the electrically conductive
sheath layer using a plasma process.
Appellant argues that the step of removing the photoresist layer from the electrically
conductive sheath layer during a plasma process is not taught or suggested by the references or
their combination (Brief at p. 7). Although claim 20 is directed to a different embodiment than
claims 9, 15 and 16 and has steps of depositing and patterning photoresist over the conductive
sheath layer, claim 20 was grouped with claims 9, 15, and 16 for purposes of setting forth
findings of fact (Answer at p. 4). The rejection contains no findings with respect to the steps of
depositing, patterning and removing the photoresist layer as recited in claim 20. We, therefore,
are constrained to reverse with respect to the rejection of claims 20-23, 25, and 26.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007