Appeal No. 1998-2948
Application 08/400,861
to aluminum alloys and then anodically-oxidized" (Br6). We
disagree with the argument that the prior art must expressly
suggest anodic oxidizing an aluminum film containing a rare
earth element. If this were so, almost every invention would
be nonobvious.
Appellants argue that the Examiner relied upon a
statement in Lee regarding minimization of the generation and
growth of annealing hillocks in aluminum-yttrium allows for
motivation to substitute the Lee alloy for the Kiyota alloy,
but that the noted reduction in Lee is relative to pure
aluminum, not relative to an alloy of aluminum with tantalum,
etc., as used in Kiyota, which removes the motivation to
combine the references (SRBr1).
Lee discloses an Al-Y alloy film having an electrical
resistivity value similar to pure Al and which also minimizes
the generation and growth of hillocks (abstract). The film is
disclosed as a candidate for interconnection conductors. One
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
the Al-Y film of Lee for interconnection conductors to achieve
the disclosed advantages of such a film, even though the
advantages are as compared to pure Al.
- 20 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007