Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
found in paragraph [0031] on page 11 of the specification, and,
finally, the phrase “integral part” is found in paragraph [0037]
on page 13 of the specification.
The above discussion of the parts of the specification are
now considered with regard to the subject matter of claim 37, as
follows. Claim 37 recites:
37. A portion of a memory array, comprising at least one
integrated structure comprising a first interconnect within said
memory array and an electrical connector extending upward from
said interconnect.
Because of the claimed phrase “at least one integrated
structure”, claim 37 is open to multiple such structures.
We find that layer metal-1 of Yu can be one integrated
structure, and that layer metal-2 of Yu can be another
integrated structure. Each of these layers is formed by a one-
step metal deposition process. See column 6, lines 40-42,
column 7, lines 34-35, and Figure 6 of Yu. Hence, as discussed
above in regard to appellants’ specification, layer metal-1 is
formed by a one-step metal deposition process. Hence, it can be
an M1 structure. Likewise, layer metal-2 can be such a
structure. In this way, we agree with the examiner’s
anticipation rejection.
Therefore, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 37.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 31, 32, and 33 as
being obvious over Ito in view of Yu
On page 13 of the brief, appellants state that this
rejection fails because of the conflicts between Ito and Yu as
discussed in the brief. Beginning on page 9 of the brief,
appellants discuss conflicts between Ito and Yu. On page 10 of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007