Appeal No. 2006-0473
Application 10/430,558
mentioned at the above-noted portions of columns 4 and
6 of Lim. Therefore, at least with respect to most of the
dependent claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the artisan may
well appreciate that Lim alone teaches these features anyway.
Lastly, with respect to the other dependent claims in this
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner has identified
pertinent corresponding teachings with respect to titanium
nitride and silicon nitride. Appellants’ additional remarks with
respect to the remaining dependent claims rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 after claim 3, are also within the same form noted
by the examiner at pages 2 and 3 of the answer as those presented
with respect to claim 3. Again, merely adding statements as to
what the limitations are of respective dependent claims are not
arguments of patentablity within 37 CFR as noted by the examiner
at the top of page 3.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting various claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007