Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
For the reasons stated above, we find that the evidence is insufficient
to establish that Figure 7 of Brahmbhatt discloses a "second wall surface . . .
to limit horizontal movement of the semiconductor integrated circuit
device," as recited in claims 1 and 16. The anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 16 is also reversed because of this limitation.
Obviousness
Hutson, Nemoto, Murphy, and Narazaki are applied to the rejection of
dependent claims 3 and 4 for their teachings of ridges. We have considered
the teachings of the references, but find that they do not cure the deficiencies
of Brahmbhatt with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the obviousness rejections of claims 3 and 4 over Brahmbhatt
and one of Hutson, Nemoto, Murphy, or Narazaki are reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
Rejection and arguments
New claim 16 added during the reexamination proceeding is almost
identical to claim 1 in the '595 patent except that the word "wall" is
eliminated as indicated in brackets in the limitation "said second wall
surface extending from said first wall surface in a direction away from said
first [wall] surface of said main body." The Examiner rejects claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 305 (this should be § 314(a) for an inter partes reexamination)
as being impermissibly broader than the original claims of the '595 patent
because "away from said first surface of said main body" in claim 16 does
- 30 -
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013