Appeal No. 2000-1402
Application No. 08/755,052
wire in a first planar metallization layer, is metal. With
regard to Stolmeijer showing a “plug,” as the examiner points
out, column 4, lines 11-20, of Stolmeijer makes it clear that
whereas the prior art to Stolmeijer used “plugs,” Stolmeijer
replaces these plugs with patterned metal layers. Thus, Figure 3
of Stolmeijer is depicting patterned metal layers, not “plugs,”
as asserted by appellants. Accordingly, for whatever relevance
there is in the use of patterned metal layers rather than plugs,
Stolmeijer is not depicting plugs. In any event, appellants
offer no explanation as to why, even if Stolmeijer shows a plug,
the instant claimed “leg” distinguishes over such a “plug.”
Since appellants make no other arguments regarding claims 1,
2, 4, 11 and 12, and fails to point to any distinction between
Stolmeijer’s disclosure and the instant claimed subject matter,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. 102(e).
With regard to claim 5, appellants argue that Stolmeijer
does not disclose the claimed connection stud in a contact layer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007