Ex Parte DOAN et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2003

08859629 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2003)

1More properly termed a “Request for Rehearing.”
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 47

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TRUNG T. DOAN, RANDHIR P. S. THAKUR
and YAUH-CHING LIU
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-1548
Application No. 08/859,629
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, DIXON and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants filed a “Request for consideration”1 on January 10, 2002, wherein
appellants requested that we consider that part of our decision of September 27, 2001
in which we remanded the case back to the examiner and to appellants for more
information regarding the rejection of claims 53-98 over 35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular,
Appeal No. 1999-1548
Application No. 08/859,629
2
we asked the parties to define and identify what a “planarization” layer is meant to cover
and why the applied references were deemed to suggest or not suggest such a
“planarization” layer.
Based on remarks received from appellants (Paper No. 44) and the examiner
(Paper No. 45), we issued a supplemental decision on July 29, 2002 (Paper No. 46),
wherein we sustained the rejection of claims 53-59, 62-64, 86-92 and 94-98 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but we did not sustain the rejection of claims 60, 61, 65-85 and 93 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasons are adequately set forth in Paper No. 46, and we need
not repeat them here.
While appellants’ request for reconsideration of January 10, 2002 (Paper No. 47)
was filed prior to our supplemental decision, it was entered into the file subsequent to
our supplemental decision, and we did not have the benefit of it when reaching our
decision of July 29, 2002.
However, we have now reviewed that request for reconsideration and find that it
does not differ from the request for reconsideration made in Paper No. 44. Since we
have already treated any such arguments and/or comments by appellants in our
supplemental decision, and appellants have not convinced us of any error in our
Appeal No. 1999-1548
Application No. 08/859,629
3
supplemental decision of July 29, 2002, we deny appellants’ request for
reconsideration.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
DENIED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/dal
Appeal No. 1999-1548
Application No. 08/859,629
4
Michael G. Fletcher
Fletcher & Associates
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289