Appeal No. 2006-1193 9
Application No. 09/961,036
The examiner further notes that Yi was applied to (1), show what one
of ordinary skill knows a phased metal layer to be, and (2), to show an
especially beneficial manner of making a phased metal layer since Agarwala
does not disclose in detail what a phased metal layer is or how it is
manufactured [id.].
In particular, with respect to appellants’ assumption (2), supra, the
examiner notes that nothing in claim 17 requires the recited first, second,
third, and fourth metal layers to be different metals [id., emphasis added].
The examiner further notes that instant claim 17 recites only “forming a
refractory metal first layer over the metallization,” and similarly, “forming a
refractory metal second layer over the refractory metal first layer” [answer,
page 8, emphasis added]. Therefore, the examiner concludes that any
metal layer over the metallization of the semiconductor chip in Yi qualifies as
the first metal layer, and any metal layer over the first metal layer qualifies
as the second metal layer with respect to claim 17 [answer, page 8,
emphasis added]. The examiner further asserts that Yi’s nominal labels of
“first,” “second, “third,” and “fourth” metal layers should not be interpreted
as literally corresponding to the recited “first,” “second, “third,” and “fourth”
metal layers of instant claim 17 [id.].
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007