Appeal No. 2005-0789
Application No. 10/410,000
1. A method for forming a metal film on a
semiconductor substrate, comprising:
electrodepositing a metal on the semiconductor
substrate using a plating solution containing up to
about 0.4M of supporting electrolyte.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14, 20, 21, and 23-26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bickford.
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Watson.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Bickford or Watson and further in view of Haydu.
Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Bickford in view of Watson.
On page 3 of the brief, appellants state that claims 1-26
stand or fall together, and that claim 1 is representative of
the claims. We therefore consider claim 1 in this appeal. 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2004).
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14,
20, 21, and 23-26
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 3-4 of the answer. The examiner’s final position with
regard to this rejection is set forth on pages 6-7 of the
answer, wherein the examiner states that because claim 1 is open
to having more than 1 type of supporting electrolyte, and is
also open to having a supporting electrolyte in an amount of “up
to about 0.4M” and another type of supporting electrolyte in an
amount exceeding this amount (i.e., that the claimed amount of
“up to about 0.4M” is not a total amount of total supporting
electrolyte). Stated another way, the examiner’s position is
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007