Appeal No. 2005-0811
Application No. 09/901,416
Appealed claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Flanner in view of Blosse.
Appellants submit at page 3 of the principal brief that
"[c]laims 1-13 stand or fall together." Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Flanner, like appellants, discloses a method
of forming interconnects on a silicon substrate by forming the
presently claimed first and second dielectric layers, as well as
cap and antireflective layers. Appellants also do not contest
the examiner's legal conclusion that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the hard
inorganic layer of Blosse for the organic antireflective layer of
Flanner. Indeed, Blosse teaches the equivalency of organic
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007