Appeal No. 2004-1886 Application No. 10/117,613 alloy film.” On page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that while Gambino teaches an aligned method for forming alloy films (hence, appellants do not dispute that Gambino teaches a self- aligned method), Gambino teaches a method for use in a completely different manner than that recited in appellants’ claims. Appellants argue that the alloy layer 60 of Gambino is used to protect a metal line over, or on top of, the alloy layer 60, and therefore is not an etch stop layer for protecting a metal under the alloy layer. Appellants also argue that Kasahara and Gambino each teaches a process for a purpose that is completely different than that of the other reference, and that neither reference has shown the desirability to combine with the other reference and therefor there can be no motivation for combining the teachings of Kasahara and Gambino. Brief, page 7. We refer to the examiner’s position on pages 4-5 of the answer and incorporate it as our own herein. Also, we refer to the examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments as set forth on pages 5-7 of the answer and incorporate it also as own herein. As explained on page 6 of the answer, Gambino teaches that metal alloy 60 is not undercut during the etching process and therefor contact 35 under metal alloy 60 will be protected during the etching process. The examiner correctly concludes, therefore, that the teaching of Gambino indicates that metal alloy 60 protects contact 35 under the metal alloy 60. The examiner also correctly concludes that because the metal alloy 60 of Gambino is not affected by the etching process, it functions as an etch stop layer. We agree, and hence, we are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments that Gambino is dissimilar from Kasahara such that the two references cannot be combined. 1 The Japanese reference is provided with an English translation of record. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007