Appeal No. 2003-1206
Application No. 09/773,063 Page 3
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over alleged admitted prior art in drawing figures 1
and 2 and as described at pages 5 and 6 of appellants’
specification (APA) in view of Hong and Liu.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472,
223 USPQ 785, 787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
The examiner essentially acknowledges that the applied APA
does not disclose a barrier metal oxide interconnect cap disposed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007