Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 5
Application No. 08/839,843
is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Biery, Li would
not be prior art against the instant application. The examiner
asserts that the instant application is not entitled to the
benefit of Biery’s filing date for two reasons.
First, regarding independent claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, and 13,
he asserts, “it is indeterminable from the disclosure of the
patented parent application, whether the claimed ‘sublayers’ and
‘overlayers’ extend fully across both the sections (3) and (4) or
only across one of sections (3) or (4).” (Examiner’s Answer
at 8.) The appellants argue, “[i]n col. 5, lines 11-27, it is
indicated that in addition to the structure of Figure 1, ‘the
high conductivity metal (sic) may be comprised of an underlay
(i.e., a thin layer of refractory metal lying under the high
conductivity metal) or an overlay (i.e., a thin layer of
refractory metal placed on top of the high conductivity metal),
or both, and underlay and an overlay.’" (Appeal Br. at 24.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007