Appeal No. 2004-1914
Application No. 09/739,288
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Boyd.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Oct. 24, 2003) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Mar. 29, 2004) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the
Brief (filed Jan. 14, 2004) and the Reply Brief (filed May 27, 2004) for appellants’
position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellants submit arguments in support of four groups of claims, as suggested
by the grouping asserted at page 6 of the Brief. Accordingly, we select claims 1, 4, 15,
and 18 as representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
We sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Boyd, because
we agree with the examiner’s findings set forth in the Answer. Appellants argue that the
product-by-process limitations of claim 1 distinguish over Boyd, taking the position that
formation of the contact electrode by etching results in structures that are much smaller
than the dimensions described in the preferred embodiments of the reference.
However, while appellants may have shown that etching allows formation of structures
having smaller dimensions, appellants have not shown that the process requires
formation of smaller structures. Moreover, appellants’ briefs do not reply to the
examiner’s pointing out the reference’s teachings with respect to etching at column 4,
lines 39 through 43. Finally, we note that appellants’ representative at the oral hearing
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007