Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
a method to remove any unevenness, thus teaching away from the claimed
range (Br. 4-5 and 8-9).
With respect to claim 13, Appellants point out that insulating layer 12
is positioned between substrate 10 and metal layer 20 in Merchant, arguing
layer 20 covers layer 10 and is beneath layer 20, not “on” layer 20, and
submits the same contentions with respect to substrate 10, insulating layer
12 and metal layer 18 of MacNaughton (Br. 5-6 and 9-10). With respect to
claim 14, Appellants contend Merchant’s Fig. 4 illustrates an intermediate
structure during manufacture of a semiconductor device and not a substrate
board for a micro hybrid integrated circuit, pointing out Merchant’s Fig. 5
illustrates the completed semiconductor device which does not include
additional metal layer 22 of the intermediate structure (id. 6). With respect
to claim 15, Appellants contend the Examiner has not established that
Merchant’s metal layer 22 and MacNaughton’s metal layer 20 are at a
different potential than substrate 10 and metal layers 18 and 20, respectively,
as claimed (id. 6-7 and 10).
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner responds that as shown in
Merchant’s Fig. 4 and MacNaughton’s Fig. 3, the respective metal layers 20
and 18 each have an area of reduced thickness in opening 14, and thus, the
references each teach a structure having “a metallic skin having at least one
area of a reduced thickness forming at least one depression” as claimed,
regardless of the method of forming the same (Answer 7-8 and 11-12). The
Examiner contends the intended use of the claimed substrate board to
accommodate components of the micro hybrid integrated circuit does not
result in a structural difference which patentably distinguishes the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013