Appeal No. 1998-0341
Application No. 08/476,293
whole surface of the device so as not to seal water into the
organic layer. This is contrasted to Appellant’s claim 11,
wherein the organic layer is sealed by way of the
encapsulation layer on the bottom, passivation layer on the
via side walls, and the cap layer on top of the organic
dielectric layer (brief-pages 8 and 9). We find merit in this
argument.
We also find difficulty with the Examiner’s reason to
combine the references. The Examiner goes to great length
explaining how it is the final product that counts, not the
process used in obtaining it. The Examiner states:
Note that in Claim 11, the limitation
“one via etched through said cap layer, said
organic-containing layer, and said substrate
encapsulation layer,” does not structurally
distinguish over Kokkotakis since it is the
patentability of the final product per se which
must be determined in claims having “product by
process” limitations, and not the patentability
of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious
product produced by a new method is not patentable
as a product, whether claimed in “product by
process” claims or not. When considering the final
resulting device structure claimed by appellant,
i.e., the
final via structure defined by limitations (d) and
(e), the via is nothing more than one having
Kokkotakis’s via structure comprising a via hole
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007