Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
With respect to claim 13, the Examiner contends insulating layer 12 is
on metal layer 20 in Fig. 4 of Merchant and on metal layer 18 in Fig. 3 of
MacNaughton (id. 4 and 5-6). With respect to claim 14, the Examiner
contends metal layer 22 is at least one other metal layer arranged on metal
layer 20 in Fig. 4 of Merchant (id. 4). And with respect to claim 15, the
Examiner contends the electric potential of metal layer 22 is different than
that of metal layer 20 and ceramic body 10 in Fig. 4 of Merchant, and the
electric potential of at least one other metal layer 20 is different than that of
metal layer 18 and ceramic body 10 in Fig. 3 of MacNaughton (id. 4 and 6).
With respect to claim 7, Appellants contend opening 14 is etched in
insulating layer 12 and then metal layer 20 is deposited on metal layer 18,
citing Merchant column 4, lines 5-31, and Fig. 4, arguing the “areas of
reduced layer thickness in layer 20, if any, do not form ‘at least one
depression’” (Br. 3). Appellants contend numerous variations in thickness
of metal layer 20 occur within opening 14, arguing “opening 14 is . . . not
formed by an area of reduced layer thickness” (id. 4). Appellants submit the
same contentions with respect to opening 14 and metal layer 18 of Fig. 3 of
MacNaughton, citing column 1, lines 37-38, and column 3, lines 17-24 (id.
7-8). Appellants contend that neither Merchant nor MacNaughton disclose
that areas of reduced thickness accommodate components of a micro hybrid
integrated circuit, and both disclose opening 14 is formed to provide
interconnection of signal lines between layers of an integrated circuit (id. 4
and 8). With respect to claim 10, Appellants contend both Merchant (citing
column 1, lines 50-57) and MacNaughton (citing “column 1, lines 50-57
[sic, 45-53]”) state unevenness of metal layer 20 is undesirable and discloses
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013