Appeal No. 1998-1578
Application No. 08/543,827
The appellants argue that Ho teaches a fixed annealing
temperature without regard to the thickness of the barrier
layer. (Appeal brief, page 9.) We are not persuaded by this
argument. While the claims on appeal recite a maximum
annealing temperature as a function of barrier layer
thickness, they do not recite a similar relationship for the
minimum annealing temperature. Nor do the appealed claims
recite any direct relationship between the actual annealing
temperature and the barrier layer thickness. Moreover, the
appellants do not really dispute the examiner’s assertion that
barrier layer thickness is a result-effective variable in
annealing. (Appeal brief, page 11; examiner’s answer, page
7.) We therefore determine that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have selected an annealing temperature and an
annealing time from Ho by taking into consideration the
thickness of the barrier layer.
The appellants rely on the declaration of Dr. Araujo,
filed July 20, 1995, as evidence of unexpected results.
(Supplemental
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007