Appeal No. 2003-0799 Page 8
Application No. 09/567,818
to the particular invention defined therein. We, therefore, procedurally reverse with respect to
claim 3. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) and In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). We make no determination at this time with regard
to the merits of the obviousness rejection.
OTHER ISSUES
Upon further prosecution, correction of the drawings and specification with regard to the
reference numerals is required. Specifically, numeral 200 referring to the back side of a Si wafer
is not contained in Figures 2A and 2C (specification, p. 7, ll. 3-4 and 16-17). The specification
refers to silicon nitride as numeral 204 at one location (specification, p. 7, ll. 4-5) and as numeral
205 in another location (specification, p. 7, ll. 8). Numeral 205 points, in Figure 2B, to a layer
designated as the second aluminum layer 212. The layer labeled “nitride or dielectric” in Figure
2A and designated as “silicon nitride 204" in the specification is labeled “polyimide” in Figure
2B. Moreover, Figures 3A-3H contain none of the reference numerals discussed in the
specification.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 3 is procedurally reversed and
we enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as per our authority under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b)(2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007