Appeal No. 2006-3351
Application No. 10/011,882
but rather as evidence that the brick pattern for the
isolation trenches is part of the scope and content of
the prior art, however constructed. Akram is clear
evidence that such teaching was part of the prior art.
For the reasons stated above, the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 6 under 35 USC § 103(a) is
affirmed.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 3 to 5 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Johansson, Akram and Yue is proper?
Appellants present no new arguments traversing the
rejection of claims 3 to 5, but rather indicate that
these claims are dependent directly or indirectly on
claim 1, which is traversed in the previous section.
Since we affirm the rejection of claim 1 for reasons
indicated supra, the rejection of claims 3 to 5 is
likewise affirmed.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3 to 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013