Appeal No. 1999-0542
Application 08/760,557
In addition to the arguments regarding the four
features discussed above, appellants note that Bost teaches a
multi-layer metalization in which a titanium nitride layer is
on a titanium layer which is on another titanium nitride layer
which is on the aluminum alloy layer. Thus, appellants argue
that the metal layer is not on the aluminum alloy layer, but
instead, is on a metal nitride layer. Appellants also argue
that Bost teaches away from placing a titanium layer directly
on an aluminum alloy layer as claimed.
The examiner responds that the use of the phrase
“formed on” in the claims does not preclude the presence of
intervening layers.
Once again, we agree with the position of appellants
for reasons noted by appellants in the appeal brief as well as
our discussion above. There is no teaching or suggestion in
Bost that any of the four features discussed above is
necessary or inherent in the Bost multi-layer metalization.
We also agree with appellants that Bost clearly teaches away
from forming a titanium layer directly on an aluminum alloy
layer because of the unwanted diffusion of titanium into the
aluminum layer in Bost. Appellants’ invention recites this
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007