Appeal No. 2006-1193 14
Application No. 09/961,036
individual chrome layers shown as comprising metal 151 [Yi, Fig. 9, col. 4,
line 37] meet the requirements of the second, third, and fourth refractory
metal layers recited in claim 17, noting that the combination teaches all
refractory layers 1-4 being made of chromium. We therefore agree with the
examiner that all the limitations of representative claim 17 are suggested by
the combination of Agarwala and Yi.
With respect to the motivation to modify Agarwala with the teachings
of Yi, we do not agree with appellants’ assertion that the examiner has
impermissibly relied upon hindsight in making the combination [brief, page
12, ¶1]. In particular, we note that the Agarwala reference fails to provide
specific details of the phased layer and that Yi makes up for this deficiency
[see e.g., Yi at col. 4, lines 32-49]. We further find that the examiner has
provided a proper motivation to combine the teachings of Agarwala with the
teachings of Yi that is taken directly from the Yi reference [answer, page 4;
see also Yi, col. 2, lines 61-67, emphasis added]. Accordingly, we shall
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agarwala in view of Yi, and further in
view of the Tummala Handbook [answer, page 4].
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007