Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”).
Regarding claims 16 through 19, the examiner has adequately
addressed the limitations of these claims. (Answer, pages 13-
14.)
We therefore uphold this ground of rejection as it applies
to claims 13, 14, and 16 through 19.
IV. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Jost
As to claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11, the examiner argues that
Jost’s element 46 is a “pinning layer” and elements 18, 20, and
28 constitute a “microcavity layer.” (Answer, page 6.) The
examiner, however, has not identified any evidence establishing
that Jost’s element 46 is a “pinning layer” within the construct
of the appealed claims. Specifically, the examiner has not
established that Jost’s element 46 is capable of changing the
shape of the microcavity, adheres well to the microcavity layer,
and is fairly rigid such that it does not expand or shrink
during the anneal relative to the microcavity layer.
Accordingly, we cannot affirm the examiner’s rejection on
this ground as to claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11.
Turning to the rejection as it applies to claims 13, 15,
and 16, the examiner correctly points out (answer, page 10) that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007