Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Chen.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed June 16, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
18, filed March 4, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21, filed
August 17, 1998) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14 and also the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10.
Regarding the anticipation rejection, independent claims
1 and 2 each recite, in pertinent part, four conductive films.
Saito clearly discloses two conductive films, titanium-
tungsten film 6 and aluminum alloy film 3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007