Appeal No. 2003-1260 Page 8
Application No. 09/850,654
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation with
respect to the subject matter of claims 1-7 and 10-12 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
Group 4
Group 4 contains claims 13 and 15. Our focus will be on representative claim 13. Claim
13 requires, among other things, “a conductive structure formed over the device layer and in
contact with the metallic material, the conductive structure having at least one sidewall extending
from a surface of the metallic material.”
Appellants argue that “the Examiner failed to cite a portion of [Kimizuka] that teaches or
suggests a conductive structure over the device layer, in contact with the metallic material and
having at least one sidewall extending from a surface of the metallic material.” (Brief, p. 5).
Figure 4F clearly shows a conductive structure 9 over the device layer 5 and in contact with the
metallic material 8. As we discussed above, we find that spacer contact with the metallic
material occurs in the known aggressively designed devices and would inherently be present in
the device of Kimizuka.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation with
respect to the subject matter of claims 13 and 15 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
Group 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007