Appeal No. 2006-1193 8
Application No. 09/961,036
The examiner addresses both assumptions, stating with respect to
point (1), that appellants correctly point out that Yi uses chromium (Cr) and
copper (Cu) in the phased metal layer [answer, page 6]. The examiner
agrees that copper is not a refractory metal [id.]. The examiner asserts that
appellants’ argument is irrelevant because Agarwala discloses a phased
metal layer of two refractory metals, as described in the paragraph bridging
columns 3 and 4 [answer, page 6, see also Agarwala, column 3, lines 62-68,
cont’d col. 4, lines 1-14, emphasis added]. The examiner asserts that all of
the metals of Agarwala’s non-wettable layer 22 are refractory and all of the
metals of Agarwala’s wettable metal layer 26 (with the exception of copper)
are refractory [answer, page 6; see also Agarwala at col. 3, lines 62-68,
cont’d col. 4, lines 1-14]. The examiner notes that Agarwala, when
combined with Yi, is not limited to a Cr-Cu (Chromium-Copper) phased
metal layer [answer, page 6]. The examiner further points out that
appellants disclose and claim as “refractory” several of the same metals
disclosed in Agarwala, specifically, Ni, Co, Pd, Pt, Ti, Cr, Mo, and Zr (see
instant claim 19) [answer, page 7, ¶1]. Thus, the examiner concludes that
Agarwala clearly discloses the use of two refractory metals in phased metal
layer 24 [id.]. The examiner asserts that appellants’ argument ignores the
fact that Agarwala discloses a phased metal layer 24 of two refractory
metals [id., emphasis added].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007