Appeal No. 1996-2088
Application No. 08/082,432
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute the two-layer Al metal of Tracy or Madokoro for the single layer Al metal of Maeda or Hu to
improve step coverage (Tracy) and increase stress migration resistance (Madokoro) (answer, para.
bridging pages 4-5).
Appellants again argue there is no motivation to make the various substitutions as proposed
(reply brief, pages 4-5) absent a hindsight reconstruction based on appellants’ disclosure (brief, pages
8-9). We note that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon
hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of
ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only
from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). We believe that to be the case here. For the
reasons set forth above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the references as suggested by the examiner. Thus, these arguments are insufficient to
overcome the rejection.
c. claim 16
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007