Appeal No. 2001-2082
Application No. 08/943,146
temperature is reduced (col. 4, lines 1-17). Therefore, the
silicon oxide and the titanium layers merely function as barrier
layers and remain unchanged during the formation of the eutectic
portion, i.e., the titanium layer neither deoxidizes the silicon
oxide layer nor mixes with the eutectic portion. Furthermore, we
find nothing in Mikkor related to any gold remaining after the
migration and in particular, a gold layer left between eutectic
line 6 and the substrate.
As discussed above, the Examiner provides no arguments to
establish that the eutectic portion containing an oxide of
titanium that deoxidized silicon oxide as well as the gold layer
between the eutectic portion and the substrate are “necessarily
present” in Mikkor’s device and one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized it. We find that the Examiner
impermissibly relies on “probabilities or possibilities” to
establish inherency. Accordingly, Mikkor cannot anticipate claim
1 and the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3, 18-20
and 25, which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Mikkor
cannot be sustained.
Turning to the rejection of claim 21, Appellants argue that
Mikkor’s substrates are bonded at the entire surface portion of
titanium layer 3 whereas the gold eutectic layer contacts a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007