Ex Parte Whitman et al - Page 2




                    Appeal No. 2006-1361                                                                                                                                                      
                    Application No. 09/997,019                                                                                                                                                

                    material layer having a planar surface without requiring subsequent planarization of the                                                                                  
                    second material.                                                                                                                                                          
                    The examiner relies on the following references:                                                                                                                          
                    Yoshihara                               6,117,486                    Sep. 12, 2000                                                                                        
                    Hsieh                                      6,228,711                    May 08, 2001                                                                                      
                    Wang                                      6,461,932                    Oct. 08, 2002                                                                                      
                    (filed Dec. 14, 1998)                                                                                                                                                     
                    Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated                                                                                 
                    by the disclosure of Wang.  Claims 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).                                                                             
                    As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Wang in view of Yoshihara with respect to                                                                                  
                    claims 3-5, and Wang in view of Hsieh with respect to claims 8 and 9.                                                                                                     
                    Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to                                                                                      
                    the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                                                                                             
                                                                         OPINION                                                                                                              
                    We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by                                                                                     
                    the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner                                                                                 
                    as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in                                                                              
                    reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the                                                                                   
                    examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the                                                                              
                    examiner’s answer.                                                                                                                                                        
                    It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon                                                                                
                    supports the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 19-22.  We reach the opposite                                                                                  
                    conclusion with respect to claims 3-5 and 10-18.  Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.                                                                                         
                    We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10-22 as being                                                                                       
                    anticipated by the disclosure of Wang.  Anticipation is established only when a single prior                                                                              
                    art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every                                                                                   
                    element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing                                                                             
                    the recited functional limitations.  RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730                                                                                 

                                                                              -2-                                                                                                             













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007