Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grill (Answer, page
5). We reverse the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Grill discloses a semiconductor device
comprising at least one conductive line 7 including a conductive
layer, an insulator 4 surrounding a portion of the conductive line,
where the insulator 4 is separated from the conductive layer by a
gap, thereby the conductive line is physically detached from the
insulator 4 and is capable of being removed by lifting off the
conductive layer (Answer, page 4, citing Fig. 7e and col. 3, ll.
38-42). The examiner finds that layer 2 of Grill is the substrate
rather than a dielectric, with the dielectric layer in Fig. 7e
represented by reference numeral 4 rather than 2 (Answer, page 7).
The gap formation, removing and etching limitations of claim 8
on appeal have been considered by the examiner as “process
limitations” that do not affect the product as claimed (Answer,
page 4). Since the examiner has found that the conductive line 7
is physically detached from the insulator 4, the examiner relies
upon appellants’ statement that such a conductive line would be
capable of being removed by lifting off, and therefore all the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007