Appeal No. 2001-1662
Application No. 09/048,208
lines 23-27. We note that our interpretation of claims is
consistent with the specification. In particular, the figures
and description thereof, indicate that the recited etching away
of the metal layer to reach the barrier metal layer within the
wide spaces and etching away of the barrier metal layer to reach
the insulating layer are intended to refer to a complete removal
of these materials within the wide spaces. See Figures 2 and 4;
Specification, page 6 ("it can be seen that the metal etch end
point is reached in the wide spaces 33 while in the narrow spaces
32, some of the metal layer still remains.") Page 7 ("the
barrier layer is etched completely through in the wider areas 33
while some of the barrier layer remains within the narrow spaces
32.").
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. 2 The rejection is
reversed.
2
2 Having concluded that a prima facie case of obviousness
does not exist, we need not consider appellants' evidence of
unexpected results, i.e., the declaration of Paul Ho under 37 CFR
§ 1.132.
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007