Appeal No. 2001-2388
Application 09/151,948
interconnect/metal pixel structure would result in improved
interconnect/metal pixel structure density and ultra large-scale
integration over the interconnect/metal pixel structure of the
admitted prior art” (answer, pages 4-5). The examiner, however,
has not established that the benefit of Huang’s method, i.e.,
formation of planarized layers having a wiring line spacing of
preferably less than about 0.35 micron, would have been desired
by one of ordinary skill in the art when forming the admitted
prior art structure having an unplanarized passivation layer on
metal pixels. For a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must appear
to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary
skill in the art, see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976), and the examiner has not established
that the applied prior art itself would have provided one of
ordinary skill in the art with a suggestion to use Huang’s method
to form an interconnect/metal pixel structure.
The examiner argues that “Huang et al. taught an alternate,
dual damascene, method of forming a structure equivalent to the
interconnect/metal pixel structure described in the appellants’
[sic, appellant’s] admitted prior art” (answer, page 11). This
argument is not persuasive because the examiner has not provided
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007