Appeal 2007-2047
Application 10/335,187
Carey teaches several embodiments of applying conductive layers to the
formed vias and channels. For example, Carey teaches the application of a
seed layer to the formed vias and channels followed by an electrolytic
deposition (plating) of an electrically conductive layer (Carey, col. 8, l. 22 -
col. 9, l. 3). Other methods of forming the conductive layer are also
disclosed by Carey in the passages that follow.
However, the Examiner has not articulated in the Answer why these
latter portions of the disclosure of Carey describing metallization steps
would or would not apply to all of the via and channel formation
embodiments of Carey, including the sixth via formation embodiment of
Carey, as they seemingly appear to. Similarly, Appellant does not address
these specific teachings of Carey in arguing against the Examiner’s
rejections.
Indeed, it appears to us that Carey would have reasonably taught or
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the use of seeding and
plating steps can follow via formation in a manner that would apply to the
sixth embodiment via and channel formation method. Hence, a modification
in accordance with Lauffer’s teachings as asserted by the Examiner in the
Answer would not appear to be necessary for establishing the obviousness of
the seeding and plating steps, albeit an issue with respect to Appellant’s
claimed roughening step may remain.
Furthermore, we note that Carey discloses the formation of stacked
vias, which disclosure appears to relate to several of Appellant’s contested
rejected claims (Carey, col. 10, ll. 49-51; Appealed claims 13-21 and 34-37).
Moreover, Appellant appears to acknowledge that multilayer imprinting of
features useful for conductive layers is known in the art (Specification 8).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013