Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
embodiments. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ
278, 280 (CCPA 1976); and In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176
USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972). Second, even the nonpreferred
embodiment touches upon the claimed range of “about 500°C.” When
the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is
the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie
rejection is properly established when the difference in the
range or value is minor. Haynes Int'l. Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co.,
8 F.3d 1573, 1577 n.3, 28 USPQ2d 1652, 1655 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also, a claimed invention is rendered prima facie obvious by
the teachings of a prior art reference that discloses a range
that touches the range recited in the claim. In re Malagari, 499
F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See also In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir.
1990). We therefore remain unpersuaded by this first contention.
The appellants also urge that Landers’ disclosure includes
the tantalum nitride being deposited over the tantalum, and
therefore the tantalum nitride is in contact with the overlying
metal structure. The appellants assert that their tantalum layer
must be in contact with the copper to obtain the invention
benefits. Therefore, they conclude, Landers does not teach the
present invention. (Appeal Brief, page 9, line 25 – page 10,
1 In addition to Shacham-Diamond et al., see, e.g., US Patent 6,065,424, filed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007