Appeal No. 2001-2082
Application No. 08/943,146
July 18, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed November
13, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellants point
out that the eutectic portion of Mikkor is formed by
transformation of gold layer 5 which migrates through polysilicon
layer 4 in the direction of thermal gradient (oral hearing,
brief, page 6 and reply brief, page 3). Appellants argue that
even if a part of gold layer 5 remains after migration, it would
be within the layer, not outside the layer to form the claimed
gold layer between the eutectic portion and the substrate (id.).
Appellants further assert that the titanium layer of Mikkor is
formed between the silicon oxide and the eutectic layer and
functions as a barrier to the eutectic layer. Appellants
conclude that the titanium layer of Mikkor cannot be included in
the eutectic portion as an oxide because the titanium layer
contacts the silicon oxide on a side opposite to the side where
the eutectic reaction occurs (oral hearing, brief, page 7 and
reply brief, page 2).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner points
out that the thickness of Mikkor’s gold layer is more than the
claimed thickness and thus, both will have a part of gold
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007