Appeal No. 2006-2218
Application No. 10/029,649
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Ohara US 5,668,033 Sep. 16, 1997
Terasawa US 5,702,962 Dec. 30, 1997
Merchant US 6,118,181 Sep. 12, 2000
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 14-16, 33 and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merchant
and Terasawa.
Claims 2, 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merchant, Terasawa and
Ohara.
We refer to the briefs and answer for the respective
positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments
actually made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10,
14-16, 33 and 34, the focus of Appellant’s arguments is that the
prior art teachings do not recognize the claimed alloy properties
for oxide removal since bonding of the substrates in both
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013