Appeal No. 1998-2671
Application No. 08/480,543
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The rejection of claims 10-11, 13, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Mintz.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Assoc, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303,
313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 10, the Examiner attempts
to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Mintz, in
particular pointing to the illustration in Figure 11 and the
accompanying description at column 7, lines 3-53. The Examiner
asserts (Answer, page 5) that the aluminum layer 422 deposited at
the disclosed temperature of 500° C would necessarily form an
alloy with the refractory metal silicide layer 420 and fill the
opening in via hole 416.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007