Appeal No. 2000-1082 7
Application No. 08/727,303
foil being laid thereon. In this respect we further find that, “[o]ne surface of the foil may
be coated with one or more barrier and/or lubricating layers and these may be Titanium or
Titanium Nitride or a combination thereof.” See page 3, lines 16–18. These layers are
constituted opposite to the side where the surface of aluminum covers the vias. See Figure
3, numerals 14, 15 and 16. Although the foils “can be pre-prepared,” page 3, line 24, it
is unequivocally clear that the foils may be prepared sequentially, as preparation constitutes
but a single embodiment of the invention. Our position is supported by the claim language
wherein the first claim requiring prior deposition is claim 7. In contrast claim 8 requires a
deposition of one or more layers in the absence of a requirement for prior deposition.
As to the stripping of the carrier argued by the appellants, we find that, “the
method may further include the step of stripping the carrier layer.” See page 3, lines 6-7.
However, “if, for example mechanical pressure is to be applied then there may be benefits
in retaining the carrier layer at that stage.” See page 3, lines 9-11. We accordingly,
conclude that the stripping of the additional layers is merely optional.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, we conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to the claimed subject matter.
We shall also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is well settled that
the ultimate obviousness is lack of novelty. The claims cannot have been anticipated and
not have been obvious. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571
(CCPA 1982). It is further our conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007