Appeal No. 1999-1655
Application No. 08/722,904
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453, 1455 (CAFC 1998). Here, we agree with the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 3, and we find that appellant has not overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner nor has appellant provided
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness. But, we agree with appellant that the
examiner’s rejection lacks support for the invention as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we
find that appellant has overcome the prima facie case of obviousness by showing
insufficient evidence by the examiner with respect to independent claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner maintains that “implanting dopants
into exposed first metal vertical sidewalls of said clad metal structure to form vertical
surface regions of first metal-dopant mixtures ‘6’ ([Choi at] col. 2, lines 24-30)” provide
support for step (b) of claim 1. (See answer at page 3.) We disagree with the examiner.
Appellant argues that Choi does not teach or suggest the concept of implanting dopants
into exposed sidewalls of the clad metal structure to form vertical surface regions of first
metal-doped mixtures. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellant. Appellant argues
that the combination of Gelatos with Choi does not teach or suggest the invention of claim
1. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellant.
From our understanding of Choi, the third tungsten film 6 is formed “by a selective
deposition method so as to prevent the metal interconnection oxidizing due to an exposure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007