Appeal No. 1999-0542
Application 08/760,557
burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as
a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See
Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those
arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see
37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to the first rejection listed above, the
examiner cites Yorikane as teaching a multi-layer metalization
made up of an aluminum layer covered by a composition of
titanium and titanium nitride. The examiner finds that
Yorikane teaches the claimed invention except for the vacuum
chamber. The examiner cites Us as teaching a multi-layer
metalization in which the layers are conductively connected
together. Kikkawa is cited as teaching a contact having
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007