Appeal No. 1998-1095
Application No. 08/367,565
According to the examiner (Final rejection, page 2),
Kikkawa discloses a first soft metal layer 105 of AlSiCu, and
a second soft metal layer 107 of AlSiCu. The examiner further
states (Final rejection, page 3) that the “process limitations
cannot impart patentability to product claims where the
product is not patentably distinguished over prior art.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 5) that “the present
application does not contain any product by process claims.”
We agree. The phrase “capable of providing a substantially
scratch-free planar surface upon polishing in a subsequent
chemical mechanical polishing step” is a statement of intended
use of the soft metal conductor, and it is not a process step
for making the soft metal conductor per se.
Appellants also argue (Brief, page 6) that:
The present invention teaches a soft metal
selected from the group consisting of Al, Cu, Ag,
binary and ternary alloys of Al, Cu and Ag. This is
equivalent to reciting a soft metal selected from
the group consisting of Al, Cu, Ag, AlCu, AgCu, AlAg
and AlCuAg. On the other hand, the Kikkawa
reference teaches an alloy of AlCuSi wherein Si is
not a component presented in any one of the
compositions claimed by the Appellant[s]. Moreover,
at no place in the Kikkawa patent has [Kikkawa]
mentioned that his alloy is a soft metal that is
scratch resistant. Furthermore, Kikkawa has not
taught, disclosed or suggested the grain size of the
alloy particles.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007