Appeal No. 2002-1701 Page 3
Application No. 09/076,111
Claims 1 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.
Patent No. 5,717,550 ("Nepela") and U.S. Patent No. 5,796,560 ("Saito"). Claims 5 and
27 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,764,056 ("Mao")
and Saito. Claims 9, 17, 25, 28, and 30 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over
U.S. Patent No. 5,761,011 ("Miyauchi") and Saito. Claims 13, 21, 29, and 31 stand
rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Mao, Miyauchi, and Saito.
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "Nepela discloses a Ta
underlayer thickness of 3.0 nm," (Examiner's Answer at 3); "Mao discloses a Ta
underlayer thickness of 3.5 nm," (id. at 4); and "Miyauchi discloses a Ta underlayer
thickness of 50 nm," (id. at 5); the examiner asserts, "the teaching of Saito of
underlayer thicknesses down to 1 nm, and even less (albeit with difficulty) still serves as
evidence that an underlayer thickness may be made that small." (Id. at 8.) The
appellants argue, "[o]ne of skill in the art considering all of the references would find
nothing to motivate the artisan to make the film less than 1 nm thick" (Appeal Br. at 4.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007