Appeal No. 95-4622
Application 08/113,665
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies
upon Okuyama in view of Kumagai, further in view of Amazawa.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the various briefs and answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claim 23 as being obvious
over Sliwa, we reverse this rejection generally for reasons set
forth by appellant in the briefs. The examiner’s position
essentially considers the claimed multilayer wirings to be met by
the high melting point tungsten layer 10 with sidewall portions
comprising aluminum as indicated by region 32a in the various
forms of Figure 3, 4 and 5. The examiner’s position is that the
recessed portions of the claim relate to the depicted
discontinuous sidewall portion 32a’ and the gap therebetween
identified as region 33 in Fig. 5C of Sliwa. The examiner also
takes the position that the claimed multilayer wiring as just
indicated with respect to regions 10 and 32a of Sliwa’s various
figures comprise a laminate.
We agree with the basic view of appellant that Sliwa
essentially teaches a single layer wiring structure with
sidewalls. We also agree with the appellant’s view that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007