Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
With respect to claim 13, we agree with the Examiner that the relative
positions of insulating layer 12 and the conductive metal layers in the
illustrated structures of Merchant and MacNaughton satisfy the limitation of
this claim as we have interpreted it above. We note that Appellants did not
contest the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “on” in the Reply
Brief.
With respect to claim 15, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
the first conductive layer has a different electric potential than the second
conductive layer employed in the illustrated structured in Merchant and
MacNaughton. Indeed, the differences in grain size between the two
aluminum layers in MacNaughton would result in such a difference.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Merchant and Ninomiya and of or MacNaughton and
Ninomiya with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by
appealed claims 7 through 11 and 13 through 15 would have been obvious as
a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013