Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
structure over the references (id. 8 and 12). With respect to claim 10, the
Examiner contends that rather than teach away from a metal layer of uneven
thickness, Merchant and MacNaughton discloses that such layers are in fact
known, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a
structure within the claimed thickness range (id. 8-9 and 13).
With respect to claim 13, the Examiner contends the claim term “on”
can be “defined as ‘a function word to indicate position in close proximity
with,” citing “Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,” arguing insulating layer
12 in Merchant’s Fig. 4 and MacNaughton’s Fig. 3 “is in close proximity
with” metal layers 20 and 18, respectively (id. 9 and 13-14). With respect to
claim 14, the Examiner contends Merchant’s Fig. 4 illustrates metal layer 22
on metal layer 20, citing column 6, lines 16-18 (id. 9-10). With respect to
claim 15, the Examiner contends that Merchant discloses metal layer 22 can
be a different material than substrate 10 and metal skin 20, citing, inter alia,
column 4, lines 53-55, and column 5, lines 35-38, and MacNaughton
discloses metal layer 20 can be a different material than substrate 10 and
metal skin 18, citing, inter alia, column 4, lines 15-23 (id. 10 and 14).
With respect to claim 7, Appellants reply that in Merchant, layer 20 is
formed by deposition on layers 18 and 12 in opening 14 and an area of
reduced thickness in layer 20, if any, is not “at least one depression,” and
Fig. 4 cannot be relied on to show that metal layer 20 is reduced in thickness
in opening 14 since there is no disclosure that the figure defines precise
proportions (Reply Br. 2). Appellants further contend that it is not the
method of forming layer 20 which distinguishes Merchant, rather the
reference does not disclose layer 20 as having a depression of reduced layer
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013