Appeal No. 2001-2203
Application No. 09/007,949
Appellants assert that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are
not taught or suggested by the applied prior art references. In
particular, Appellants contend (Brief, pages 3-6), that neither Lee
nor Wilson has any teaching or suggestion of the diffusion of a
selected alloying element from a first metal into the other of the
first and second metal layers resulting in a “. . . substantially
continuous concentration diffusion gradient of said selected
alloying element between said first metal layer and said second
metal layer” as claimed.
After careful review of the Lee and Wilson references, in
light of the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with
Appellants’ position as stated in the Brief. In particular, we
find no disclosure in Lee, relied on by the Examiner as teaching
the claimed diffusion gradient, of the diffusion between first and
second metal layers as claimed that would satisfy the requirements
of appealed claim 1. We note that, while the Examiner has cited
(Answer, pages 4 and 5) several portions of the disclosure of Lee
in support of the stated rejection, each of the cited portions are
directed to different embodiments of the semiconductor device of
Lee. For example, the disclosure at column 17, lines 30-66 in Lee
is directed to the Figure 20 embodiment in which heat treatment
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007