Appeal No. 2001-1305
Application 08/872,782
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1 through 4
and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bindra in view of Kametani. The Examiner has relied on
Bindra for teaching all the claimed limitations except for the
clearances between conductive material and conductive layers and
the teaching of a chip. See page 4 of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellants argue that Bindra does not teach or suggest
[I]mpermeable fluoropolymer barrier layer devoid of ceramic
material disposed on and covering at least one ceramic
containing dielectric layer, said outermost protective
impermeable fluoropolymer barrier layer being impermeable to
process chemicals encountered during fabrication of said
integrated circuit chip and permitting metallized ceramic
line processes without degradation of said integrated
circuit chip.
See page 5 of the brief. We note that this language is quoted
from Appellants’ claim 1. We further note that claim 10, the
other independent claim, also recites similar language.
Appellants argue that Bindra discloses that the inner dielectric
material used for an insulating layer and the dielectric layer
are formed from the same material. See pages 5 and 6 of the
brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007