Appeal 2007-1269
Application 10/636,468
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that:
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 6 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
rwk
Patent Counsel
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
P.O. BOX 450A
Santa Clara CA 95052
17
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Last modified: September 9, 2013