Appeal No. 2005-2276
Application No. 09/734,467
coefficients in the respective layers (see column 1, lines 17-20). Azuma further discloses
applying a titanium adhesion layer between the poorly bonding layers to reduce cracking (i.e., by
providing better bonding between the layers) (column 1, lines 34-37). Although both references
may be concerned with surface irregularities in a very broad sense, the examiner does not seem
to recognize that the type of surface irregularities and the causes and the solutions of these
surface irregularities are different in each reference. Therefore, an artisan would not have been
motivated to modify Kawakubo to avoid “short-inducing surface irregularities” as urged by the
examiner particularly because Kawakubo’s aforementioned solution (i.e., use of Pt-Ti alloy)
already avoids the occurrence of “metal flow” or surface irregularities.
The above discussed rejection is further deficient in another respect. There is no
suggestion that the semiconductor memory device of Kawakubo would not be damaged if
subjected to the high temperature heat treatment of Azuma. Therefore, an artisan would have
been discouraged from providing Kawakubo’s process with Azuma’s heating step due to the
possibility that the high temperature could damage or destroy the semiconductor memory device.
Stated differently, such a provision would not have a reasonable expectation for success as
required for obviousness under Section 103. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904, 7
USPQ 2d 1673, 1681.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejection of
appealed independent claim 1 along with claims 2-3, 7, 11-13, 15 and 17 as being obvious over
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007