Appeal No. 1999-2739
Application No. 08/891,127
citing as support the fact that the metal layer in both
instances is heat treated to form
a metal silicide layer (Answer, page 4). We disagree.
We determine that the examiner has no basis in evidence or
convincing reasoning to support his position and legal
conclusion. The examiner has not pointed to any evidence or
convincing reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation of achieving success by
lowering the annealing temperatures of Takeuchi to those recited
in claim 1, much less why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have limited the anneal to 30-60 seconds in a nitrogen
atmosphere when the examiner has not shown that these conditions
were even recognized by Takeuchi. See In re Zurko, 258 F.3d
1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(The
deficiencies of a reference cannot be remedied by the PTO’s
general conclusions of “basic knowledge” or “common sense”).
The examiner also finds that Takeuchi fails to teach
depositing the nickel by electroless deposition instead of
sputtering (Answer, page 4). To remedy this deficiency, the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007