Appeal No. 2005-0293 Application No. 09/727,139 Xiang et al. 6,211,044 B1 Apr. 03, 2001 (Xiang) (filed Apr. 12, 1999) Nakajima 6,235,627 B1 May 22, 2001 (filed Jun. 24, 1998) Claims 1 through 3, 9, 10, and 18 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima. (Examiner’s answer mailed Aug. 25, 2003, paper 13, pages 3-4.) In addition, claim 4 on appeal stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima and further in view of Then. (Id. at 4.) Also, claims 5 through 13, 16, and 19 through 22 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima and further in view of Jeng. (Id. at 4-6.) Further, claim 17 on appeal stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima and further in view of Ramachandran. (Id. at 6.) We reverse these rejections. Xiang, the principal prior art reference on which the examiner’s rejections are based, discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor device having feature sizes that are independent of lithographic limitations. (Column 2, lines 38- 40.) Xiang teaches that the method includes the steps of: 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007