Appeal No. 1998-1547
Application No. 08/582,001
layers 12 and 14 is, in fact, an “etch retardant layer.” What
is clear is that Erpelding discloses layer 10 only as a
“plastic material, preferably polyimide” [column 3, lines 66-
67] and never as a metal layer at all, let alone a metal layer
of gold, tungsten or nickel, as required by the instant
claims. So, even though the polyimide layer may be an etch
retardant layer, there is no suggestion at all in Erpelding1
that would have led a skilled artisan to employ gold, tungsten
or nickel as an etch retardant layer. The only suggestion for
using these materials comes from appellants’ own disclosure.
Thus, it would appear that the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight.
At page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that the
“materials recited in the claims are known equivalents to the
polyimide listed in the reference.” However, there is no
indication by the examiner as to what evidence is being relied
on for determining that these materials are “equivalent” nor
is there any indication as to for what purposes they are
allegedly “equivalent.”
1Appellants’ own alternative embodiment, disclosed at page
16 of the specification, indicates that a thermoplastic
polyimide can be used to form the etch-stop layer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007