Appeal No. 2006-1193 7
Application No. 09/961,036
Appellants note that Yi teaches copper in connection with chromium and
argue that the limitations of claim 17 that require [four] refractory metal
layers are not taught or suggested by Yi [id.]. Appellants further argue that
Agarwala adds nothing to remedy this deficiency [id.]. Appellants conclude
that claim 17 is unobvious over Yi in view of Agarwala because the specific
limitations recited in claim 17 are not taught by the cited references, and
also because the cited references taken as a whole do not suggest the
claimed subject matter [brief, pages 11 and 12].
The examiner responds that appellants’ arguments are premised upon
the following two incorrect assumptions [answer, page 5]:
(1) that one of ordinary skill would not use the particular refractory
metals disclosed by Agarwala [col. 4, lines 3-14] in the phased metal layer
because Yi uses copper with chromium metals in the phased metal layer
[answer, pages 5 and 6], and,
(2) that Yi does not teach the first and third metals layers are
substantially the same metal, and also that the second and fourth metal
layers are substantially the same metal, as claimed [answer, page 6].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007