Appeal No. 2002-0376
Application No. 09/072,137
citations for the statement of the rejection and adds minor discussion that the standard
value of density associated with compaction is determined by design constraints and
design rules. While we agree that a standard value would be so based, the prior art
applied by the examiner and the specific portions thereof cited in the statement of the
rejection do not teach the use thereof as the control criterion for a compaction process.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 over Lee, Boyle,
Kamdar, Edwards, Kawakami or Greidinger.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10 and 11, we find that the examiner’s
reliance upon Official Notice of various details of the claimed invention does not remedy
the deficiency in the base references, nor has the examiner relied upon any suggestion
or motivation in the base teachings to suggest the use of a standard value of element
density as a control criterion in a compaction process. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10 and 11 under 35 USC § 103 over Lee,
Kawakami or Greidinger in view of Official Notice.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007