Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
shown by Havemann in Figure 3G provides a greater surface area contact between
the encapsulation layer (i.e., upper conductive liner) 48 and the encapsulation
material (i.e., lower conductive liner) 36. Due to the increased surface area
contact, the electrical connection would be enhanced with the added beneficial
mechanical effect of providing a stronger joint in the encapsulation material-to-
encapsulation material contact area (i.e., the chance of damage to the stronger
overlapped encapsulation material-to-encapsulation material interconnection would
be reduced by using the overlapping structure).
Appellants make much ado about the Examiner’s paraphrasing Havemann’s
disclosure of forming layers “without deleterious mechanical effects” to mean
forming layers “without mechanical defects.” (Br. 9-10). However, any error
created by such paraphrasing is harmless and certainly does not vitiate the above
discussed motivation for combining Havemann with Farrar.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner does not indicate where Farrar
discloses insulating and conducting layers having deleterious mechanical effects
such that Havemann would be combined with Farrar to cure those deleterious
effects. (Br. 10-11). Appellants appear to be arguing that there is no motivation to
combine Havemann with Farrar. For reasons previously explained, an artisan
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references in the
manner proposed by the Examiner.
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and of non-argued claims 2-4, 6,
and 9, which depend therefrom.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007