Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). We have no doubt that the
expression “one or more ceramic layers” clearly defines the
bounds of what is claimed insofar as the number of layers is
concerned, and agree with appellant that it means the same thing
as “at least one ceramic layer.” In this regard we note that in
In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1227, 187 USPQ 664, 667-68 (CCPA
1975), the Court held that the claimed alternative expression
“one or several pieces” meant the same as “at least one piece”
and complied with § 112, second paragraph, since it did not
“render the boundaries of the [claimed] invention
undeterminable.”
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
The basis of this rejection is stated on pages 3 and 4 of
the examiner’s answer. After noting that Haluska discloses a
nitrided ceramic coating applicable to many electronic devices,
the examiner states (page 4):
Kobayashi et al. discloses the use of a refractory
metal in a multi-layer metalization [sic]. As shown in
Figure 6E [sic: 6(e)], a titanium nitride (TiN) film
67 is deposited as a barrier metal. A tungsten
silicide film 68 is deposited on top of the titanium
nitride film 67. Tungsten 610 contacts tungsten
silicide film 68 through a hole in the spin-on-glass
insulating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007