Appeal No. 2005-1503
Application No. 10/165,888
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being
obvious over Duncombe in view of Lin
We consider claim 7 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 6 of the answer. Appellants’ position is set forth at the
bottom of page 3 and at the top of page 4 of the brief.
Appellants argue the same arguments regarding the
aforementioned deficiencies in Duncombe. Appellants argue that
Lin adds nothing regarding the ion bombardment required by claim
1.
As discussed, supra, Duncombe does not disclose ion
bombardment. Lin does not cure this deficiency of Duncombe.
Hence, for the reasons discussed, supra, we also reverse the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being obvious over
Duncombe in view of Lin.
V. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection is
affirmed.
Each of the art rejections is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007