Appeal No. 2003-1206
Application No. 09/773,063 Page 6
person having ordinary skill in the art” (emphasis added).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(1999); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
14, 148 USPQ 459, 465 (1966).
Here, as pointed out by the appellants in their briefs, the
examiner has not established any convincing reason, suggestion or
motivation for combining both of Hong and Liu with the APA in a
manner so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Concerning
this matter, the examiner has not carried the burden of
reasonably showing why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have employed the teachings of Liu concerning a passivation layer
to prevent corrosion of a conductor to modify APA with or without
Hong in the manner proposed. As noted by appellants in the
briefs, the examiner has not identified any need for additional
corrosion protection for the device of APA that already includes
a capping layer. Nor has the examiner identified why the device
of Hong needs such protection since Hong covers the conductive
material with a barrier (34) and dielectric layer (36) as shown
in drawing figure 1F. More specifically, the examiner has not
established how the teachings of Hong with respect to the
formation of a diffusion barrier over a conductor and under a
dielectric material are compatible with Liu’s teachings of a
passivation layer formed directly on the conductive material.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007