Appeal 2007-1312
Application 10/997,715
As for the separately argued recitation of claim 29 that the first
uppercladding layer fills the gaps to approximately 75% of the height of the
cores, we are convinced, for the reasons set forth above, that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct a typical cost-
benefit analysis to determine how much of the gaps are filled by the
HDPCVD process.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
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) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP/AMAT
Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013