Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized the utility thereof in
the method of Kikuchi given that Kikuchi is concerned with making fine
feature sizes. Thus, the use of such small masking particles as Appellants
acknowledge to be commercially available would have been recognized by
one of ordinary skill in the art as being useful as particle masks in Kikuchi’s
process. It is axiomatic that admitted prior art in an applicants' Specification
may be used in determining the patentability of a claimed invention and that
consideration of the prior art cited by the Examiner may include
consideration of the admitted prior art found in an applicants' Specification.
In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571, 184 USPQ 607, 611-612 (CCPA
1975).
Thus, we shall affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
4 and 27 on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 23,
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view
of Deckman; to reject claims 3, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Deckman and Hatakeyama; to
reject claims 9, 14-20, 24-26, 28-46, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Deckman, Hatakeyama, and Jun;
and to reject claims 4 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kikuchi in view of Deckman, Hatakeyama, Jun, and Brandes 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).
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013