Appeal No. 2005-2014 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/792,737
established a prima facie obviousness, the burden then shifts to the applicant to rebut.
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).
Rebuttal may take the form of "a comparison of test data showing that the claimed
compositions possess unexpectedly improved properties . . . that the prior art does not
have, that the prior art is so deficient that there is no motivation to make what might
otherwise appear to be obvious changes, or any other argument . . . that is pertinent."
Id. at 692-93, USPQ2d 1901. The Appellants have not directed us to evidence of
unexpected results.
Regarding claim 36, the Appellants argue that “[t]he prior art fails to suggest that
effective ultra-thin TaN barriers can be grown in such narrow vias, as defined in
dependent Claim 36.” (Brief, p. 5).
This argument is not persuasive because Appellants’ description of the
background art in the specification discloses that via widths having the claimed size
have been contemplated in advance integrated circuits. (Page 3).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the use of hindsight are not persuasive for the
resaons stated above.
The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Simon, Lim, Nogami, Hong and Gates. We affirm.
The subject mater of claim 4 further limits the subject matter of claim 1 by
describing the ALD process. The Examiner added the Gates reference to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007