Appeal No. 2003-2013
Application No. 09/491,230
a first bottom contact and a second bottom contact formed
through said first passivation layer at a first contact location
and a second contact location, respectively;
a resistive film formed over said first passivation layer to
serve as a resistor, wherein said resistive film has a first end
and a second end;
a first top contact connecting said first bottom contact to
said first end of said resistive film; and
a second top contact connecting said second bottom contact
to said second end of said resistive film.
In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner relies
upon the following reference:
Matthews 5,182,225 Jan. 26, 1993
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a resistor
wherein first and second top contacts connect first and second
bottom contacts to first and second ends of a resistive film.
Appealed claims 6, 7, 11, 12 and 16-19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matthews. Claims 8-10
and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matthews.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with appellants that the prior art cited by the examiner neither
describes the claimed invention within the meaning of § 102 nor
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007