Appeal 2006-2499
Application 10/268,735
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lin in view of Singhvi and Lee (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that the four layers in the metallization system of
the product-by-process claims on appeal are not suggested by the
combination of prior art cited by the Examiner (Br. 4).
Appellants contend that Lin does not disclose the barrier layer
thickness or the conduction layer reflectance, and the Examiner has not
established any motivation for selecting a specific thickness from the broad
range disclosed by Singhvi or a reflectance from the wide range taught by
Lee (Br. 5-6). Appellants contend that the size of the vias is not a
motivation for the barrier thickness in the present invention (Br. 6).
The Examiner contends that Lin discloses all aspects of the claimed
product with the exception of the barrier layer thickness and the conduction
layer reflectance, and cites Singhvi and Lee as evidence that such variables
are result-effective variables known in the art (Answer 3-6).
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence, which prima facie case has not
been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection presented in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013