Appeal No. 2002-1330
Application No. 09/178,249
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Smith (examiner’s answer mailed
Mar. 26, 2002, paper 13, page 3); and
II. claim 5 as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable
over Smith in view of Radhakrishnan (id.).1
We affirm both rejections.2
Smith describes a method for forming a nanoporous
dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate comprising:
(a) applying a nanoporous aerogel precursor sol on the
substrate, the precursor sol comprising specified
amounts of a metal-based aerogel precursor reactant
and a specified amount of a first solvent comprising
glycerol; and
(b) gelling (i.e., reacting) the precursor sol and drying
to form a dry nanoporous dielectric layer.
1 The appellants’ statement of the issues (appeal brief
filed Dec. 3, 2001, paper 12, p. 2) is erroneous.
2 The appellants submit: “The claims are treated as single
group [sic] in each rejection.” (Appeal brief, p. 2.) However,
the appellants present only one set of arguments against both
prior art rejections and only with respect to claim 1. (Id. at
p. 3.) Although the examiner rejected claim 5 separately over
the combined teachings of Smith and Radhakrishnan, the
appellants deliberately chose to rely on the same arguments for
both grounds of rejection. Under these circumstances, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007