Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
The appellants argue that Reddy does not disclose the
claimed process, in particular the “floating contact” concept.
(Appeal brief, pages 27-28.) However, the examiner is relying
on Reddy only for the teaching that nickel alloys “are also
effective in addition to nickel as a source metal to apply to
metallizations of tungsten to make them brazable or
solderable...” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference... Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
The appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Reddy with Park ‘095. (Appeal brief, page 32.) We disagree.
Reddy teaches that Ni and Ni alloys are interchangeable metal
sources in a chemical vapor deposition process that is similar
to that described in Park ‘095. This teaching would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in
the manner proposed by the examiner.
Rejection V: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Park ‘095
With respect to appealed claim 15, the examiner found that
Park ‘095 does not disclose heating the chamber and its contents
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007