Appeal 2006-2499
Application 10/268,735
Angstroms for the barrier layer (col. 3, ll. 20-42; col. 4, ll. 56-58;
and col. 6, ll. 1-5; Answer 3); and
(5) Lee teaches that a copper film deposited with a Br/I catalyst will
have an enhanced deposition rate and desired higher reflectivity
(Abstract; col. 2, ll. 58-62; col. 3, ll. 59-60; col. 4, ll. 56; col. 5, ll.
1-6; and Figs. 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B; Answer 4).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit, and where the
combination of prior art involves more than a simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
something ready for the improvement, the analysis should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). “The law is replete with cases
in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is
some range or other variable within the claims. [Citations omitted]. These
cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the applicant must show
that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed
range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A
prior art range that encompasses the claimed range creates at least a strong
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013