Appeal No. 1999-1871 Page 6
Application No. 08/688,337
PSG as the sacrificial layer and, accordingly, there is nothing in the cited art to cause one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute PSG for aluminum in the process of Higashi (Brief at 5).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because Higashi suggests that other sacrificial
layers can be substituted for aluminum and the Examiner has established that PSG was such a
known layer. Thus the Examiner has established that substitution would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in this art to achieve the same end result.
Whether the references discuss the advantages mentioned by Appellant is of no moment.
“As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art
taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
Claims 3-4
Appellant makes a similar argument with regard to claims 3-4, i.e. that there are
advantages to using PSG and oxides (Brief at 5). Again, the fact that there are advantages does
not negate the fact that there is a suggestion arising out of the prior art for substituting other
known sacrificial layers for aluminum.
Claim 8
Appellant contends that claim 8 is directed to a different embodiment in which the
position and size of the cavity is determined by the location of the via and the etching time rather
than by the extent of the sacrificial layer (Brief at 5; Reply Brief at 3). According to Appellant,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007