Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
devices. However, we do not agree with the Examiner's
assertion that MacNaughton's teachings of aluminum can be
directly transferred to the manufacture of aluminum copper
alloy. Instead, we agree with Appellant's argument, brief at
page 8, "that MacNaughton teaches the use
of a deposition temperature at low temperature below 100°C to
obtain small grain size is again only in relation to the
deposition of aluminum and aluminum only. . . . [and]
it would be erroneous to assume that everything that is taught
about aluminum will also apply exactly the same way to its
alloy, AlCu." The Examiner needs a bridging reference
or a line of reasoning before the teachings of MacNaughton,
which are solely disclosed to relate to the deposition of
aluminum only, can be transferred to the manufacture involving
aluminum copper alloy. This the Examiner has not done.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 12
and 13 over APA in view of Mueller and MacNaughton.
Rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-29.
The Examiner has given a lucid explanation of the
rejection of these claims over Lee in view of APA and
MacNaughton on pages 6-8 of the Examiner's answer. We agree
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007