Appeal No. 2003-0623
Application No. 09/348,632
in the specification as originally filed. Id. It then follows that the use of the terminology
“polarizing” in the appealed claims does not violate the requirements of the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We also reverse the examiner Sections 102 and 103 rejections for essentially those reasons
set forth at pages 6 through 24 of the Brief. We only add that the examiner, on this record, has not
demonstrated that the deposition methods disclosed in the applied prior art references are useful for
depositing a particular conductive material in recesses for submicron lines or submicron vias to
advantageously obtain an interconnect structure on an electronic device with void-free seamless
submicron conductors. This is especially true in this case since Poris, one of the prior art
references relied upon by the examiner, teaches away from using the claimed deposition method to
form void-free seamless submicron conductors as indicated by the appellants. See also, Poris,
Figure 1A, together with Poris, column 4, lines 49-62. It then follows that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have readily envisaged, or would not have been led to use, the claimed deposition
method (inclusive of, e.g., the types of the electroplating bath compositions and conditions capable
of providing void-free seamless submicron conductors not recognized by the applied prior art
references) to form the claimed interconnect structure on an electronic device within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § § 102 and 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007