Appeal No. 2002-0730 5
Application No. 09/410,250
on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Dubin alone or in view of Morrissey or
Lyde are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
As an initial matter the appellants have stated that, A[t]hese claims do not stand or
fall together.@ See Brief, page 5. The argument before us however, presents a single issue
with respect to claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 14 directed to the electrolytic solution,
and a separate argument with respect to claims 15 through 28 directed to a process for
electroplating. Accordingly, we focus primarily on claims 1 and 15 and briefly address
claims 14, 18 and 21 as they are representative of separate rejections of record and limit
our consideration thereto. See 37 CFR '1.192(c)(7) (2001).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) over Lyde or Morrissey
It is the basic premise of the appellants that, Aapplicants do not claim to have
invented highly complexed copper plating baths; rather, they have discovered an important
new utility for such a bath. The applicants were the first to recognize that highly
complexed copper plating baths, prepared in accordance with the specification and as
recited in the present claims, offer significant advantages for copper chip plating.@ See
Brief, page 7.
Indeed in order to clarify the differences over the prior art, the appellants required
that the electrolytic solution of claim 1 be used for a particular purpose, Aelectroplating
copper circuitry in trenches and vias in dielectric material on semiconductor chips.@ See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007