Appeal No. 1996-0189
Application No. 08/054,200
Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over either Wang or Lamont in view of
either Armstrong or Ajika. Claims 10-14 and 17-21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang
or Lamont in view of Foell. In addition, claims 15, 16, 22
and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over either Wang or Lamont in view of Foell and
further in view of Ajika or Armstrong.
We have carefully considered the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
agree with appellants that the prior art applied by the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections.
While Wang and Lamont, the primary references, disclose
methods for producing a planar aluminum-containing layer on a
substrate having hole structures by sputtering processes, the
examiner recognizes that the methods of the references do not
close the hole structures without filling a lower region of
the structures, as required by the appealed claims. Indeed,
as emphasized by appellants, it is the objective of the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007