Appeal No. 1999-1655
Application No. 08/722,904
after the ion implantation of the tungsten rather than after deposition of copper. (Choi at
col. 2.) The examiner relies upon the teachings of Gelatos with respect to annealing
multiple layers to form intermetallic layers to promote superior adhesion and this would
have been desirable in the formation of Choi. (See answer at page 3.) We agree with the
examiner.
At page 5 of the brief, Appellant recites the steps of claim 3 and argues neither Choi or
Gelatos nor any proper combination of these references teaches or suggests the claimed
limitations. We disagree with appellant. In the answer, the examiner has identified the
relevant teachings in the prior art references and provided a motivation for the combination
which appellant has not adequately rebutted. Therefore, we will sustain the examiner
rejection of independent claim 3, and since Choi also discloses the limitation recited in
dependent claim 4, we will sustain this rejection also.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed, and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007