Appeal No. 2001-2182 5
Application No. 08/948,895
EP’283 in view of Sandhu and Shankar and further in view of Endo.
Claims 6, 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Shankar in view of Sandhu, GB’345 and EP’283.
Claims 10 through 14 and 16 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Shankar in view of Sandhu, GB’345 and EP’283, and
further in view of Endo.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejections of the claims under §103(a)
are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of these rejections.
"[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability." See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner relies upon a
combination of from three to five references to reject the claimed subject matter and
establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The combination of references before us discloses each of the elements required by
the claimed subject matter. With respect to claim 1,EP’283 relied upon as the primary
reference in each of the rejection of claim 1, is directed to a semiconductor device
including an insulative interlayer, i.e., an intermediate layer, composed of amorphous
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007