Appeal No. 2004-1886
Application No. 10/117,613
The examiner also points out that Kasahara was relied upon
for teaching use of an etch stop layer for protecting a metal
line under the alloy layer, and the examiner correctly points
out that appellants do not dispute these teachings of Kasahara.
We note that obviousness can be established by combining or
modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed
invention where there is some teaching, suggesting, or
motivation to do so found either in the reference or in the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). As pointed out on pages 4-5 of the answer, the
examiner adequately explains how the combination suggests the
claimed invention.
In view of the above, we therefor affirm the rejection.
Conclusion
The obviousness rejection is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)
AFFIRMED
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JEFFREY T. SMITH ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
BAP/sld
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007