Appeal No. 2006-0450 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/044,141
We turn next to the rejection of claims 8 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chun-Jen in view of
Takahashi and further in view of Lee. The examiner’s position
(answer, page 15) is that Chun-Jen and Takahashi do not teach the
specific composition of the protective layer. The examiner turns
to Lee for a teaching of a protective layer that includes a
polyimide. Appellant (brief, page 13) does not present any
arguments with respect to this rejection other than to base the
patentability of the claims on the patentability of claims 7 and
9. From our review of the record, we are not persuaded of any
error on the part of the examiner, and agree with the examiner
for the reasons set forth in the rejection. The rejection of
claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007