Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
First aluminum layer 18 is deposited over barrier layer 16 to a depth
which ensures that a complete layer is formed in opening 14 as illustrated in
Fig. 2 (id., col. 3, ll. 23-51). We find one of ordinary skill in this art in light
of this disclosure would have found from MacNaughton’s Fig. 3 that a
portion of aluminum layer 18 has a depression extending into opening 14
which covers the sides of the opening and is of reduced thickness compared
to the portion of the layer extending over insulating layer 12, even though,
as Appellants point out, the precise dimensions of the thicknesses of the
portions of the layer are not disclosed by MacNaughton. Second aluminum
layer 20 is formed over first layer 18, completely filling opening 14, “giving
an approximately planar upper surface” (id., col. 3, l. 60, to col. 4, l. 5).
MacNaughton discloses that “nucleation of the aluminum in layer 20 onto
the extremely small grains formed in layer 18 minimizes the growth of large
grains, and can reduce or eliminate the random voiding problem caused by
occasional large grain growth” (id., col. 4, ll. 15-23; see also col. 3,
ll. 34-41).
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that, prima facie, each of
Merchant and MacNaughton would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
this art the limitations with respect to the layers on the substrate board
specified by claims 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15. With respect to claim 7, we agree
with the Examiner that, contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the portion of
each of conductive metal layer 20 of Merchant’s Fig. 4 and of conductive
metal layer 18 of MacNaughton’s Fig. 3 in respective openings 14 is in fact
a depression in the metal layer that is of reduced thickness with respect to
the portion of the layer on insulating layer 12. Merchant’s Fig. 3 and
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013