Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
use the multilevel metallization of Kobayashi et al.
with the nitrided ceramic coating of Haluska et al.
This is because Haluska et al. indicate that their
coating is suitable for electronic devices and
Kobayashi et al. show that their multilevel
metallization coexists with an insulation coating on
the surface of the semiconductor device.
Further, at page 7, the examiner concludes:
As to whether there is motivation to combine the
references, the Examiner believes that because Haluska
et al. teaches the use of the ceramic coating on a wide
variety of devices, including semiconductor devices,
the use of the coating on the structure of Kobayashi et
al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
After fully considering the record in this case in view of 5
the arguments presented in appellant’s brief and the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that rejection (2) should not be sustained.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner lists three points by
which appellant alleges that his invention differs from Haluska.
We will assume for the sake of argument that the examiner is
correct in holding that points 1 and 3 do not patentably
distinguish the claims from Haluska. Moreover, we agree with the
examiner that, as a general proposition, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the nitrided
5In considering the record, we note that the features
recited in claims 14, 18, 19 (diffusion barrier metal layer) and
23 are not shown in the drawings, as required by 37 CFR
§ 1.83(a).
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007