Appeal No. 2006-0367
Application No. 10/353,506
find that the combined teachings of the references would have suggested forming a
cover over a sacrificial layer, thermally decomposing sacrificial layer, and densifying the
cover.
Assuming that the representative claim was interpreted to require performing the
step of densifying before the step of thermally decomposing, moreover, we find that
persons skilled in the art would have known to limit densification so as not to prevent
thermally decomposition of the sacrificial layer underneath the cover. Consequently, we
find that the combined teachings of the references, complemented by the knowledge of
persons skilled in the art, would have suggested forming a cover over a sacrificial layer,
densifying the cover so as not to prevent thermally decomposition of the sacrificial layer
underneath the cover, and then thermally decomposing the sacrificial layer. Therefore,
we affirm the rejections of claim 17 and of claims 18-20, 26, and 27, which fall therewith.
D. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 17-20, 26, and 27 under § 103(a) are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007