Appeal No. 2005-0168
Application No. 10/138,393
The examiner poses the question "[w]hy would appellant's
claim 1 seed layer with two distinguishable layers be
distinguished from Shue?" (page 4 of Answer, last paragraph).
However, appellants' claim 1 recites only a single seed layer,
not two distinguishable layers.
The examiner also queries "what then would keep the bottom
portion of layer 50 from satisfying the requirement?" (page 5 of
Answer, first paragraph). However, layer 50 of Shue fails to
meet the requirements of the claimed seed layer inasmuch as it
does not contain a first and second material.
Since the examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 18 rests upon
the same rationale applied to the § 102 rejection, it must also
fall.
As a final point, upon return of this application to the
examiner, the examiner has the opportunity of assessing the
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of formulating a single seed
layer, containing silicon and copper, from separate layers 27 and
50 of Shue.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007