Appeal No. 2003-1299
Application No. 09/443,443
structure indicates that layer 19 is a free floating structure
that is not connected to the unremoved portions of the
corresponding dielectric layer. We agree for the following
reasons.
On page 8 of answer, the examiner simply responds by
stating that appellants have not provided a convincing argument
that the term requires that the remaining portions of the
dielectric to be connected. We find that on page 9, at lines
12-15 of appellants’ specification, the specification indicates
that the plurality of support structures 138 remain connected to
portions of the dielectric layer 134 which have not been
removed. In this light, we find that claim 5 requires that the
support structures are interconnected with unremoved portions of
the passivation layer. We therefore disagree with the
examiner’s statement made at the top of page 8 of the answer.
In view of this, we reverse this rejection with respect to claim
5.
With respect to claim 30, because claim 30 depends upon
claims 28/29, and because we reverse the rejection with respect
to claims 28 and 29 (discussed, infra, in Section III of this
decision), we reverse the rejection of claim 30.
In summary, with regard to this rejection, we affirm the
rejection with respect to claims 1-4, 10, 24-27, and 32, but we
reverse the rejection with respect to claims 5 and 30.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007