Appeal No. 1998-0341
Application No. 08/476,293
indicates that Kokkotakis and IBM disclose the claimed device
except for the encapsulation layer over the patterned
conductors and substrate. The Examiner notes that Balda
teaches such an encapsulation layer over a conductive pattern
and substrate, and concludes that it would have been obvious
to use this teaching in Kokkotakis “because the inorganic
‘encapsulation’ layer prevents sputter etching and
redepositing of the metallization during subsequent patterning
of a later applied layer of organic material.” (Answer-page
5).
Appellant concedes that Kokkotakis and IBM teach the
elements of claim 11 except for the encapsulation layer.
Also, Appellant does not challenge that Balda discloses an
inorganic insulating film over conductors, which film we find
to be an encapsulation layer (brief-page 6). However,
Appellant argues there is no motivation to combine Balda with
Kokkotakis and IBM, and that the references actually teach
away from such a combination. Citing column 5, line 68-column
6, line 10, Appellant stresses that Balda finds it important
and imperative that the encapsulation layer not cover the
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007