Appeal 2007-1295
Application 10/109,713
This is the same contention that Appellants raised in the discussion of
the previous rejection. As previously discussed, the Lopatin and APA,
Kikkawa references described advances in the formation of damascene
structures. This is also the case for the Klaus reference. As previously
stated, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have viewed the techniques
of the identified prior art references to obtain the advances described therein.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
process as disclosed by the prior art would have been suitable for the
formation of damascene structures.
Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Lopatin and the APA or Kikkawa and further in
view of Farrar or the APA (Specification 14, l. 23 to p. 15, l. 3).
The Examiner cites the APA and the Farrar reference as evidence that
it was conventional to couple a damascene structure and an integrated circuit
with a processor (Answer 6).
Appellants’ argument, Br. 14, regarding the suitability of the Farrar
reference as appropriate prior art is noted. The Examiner relied on this
reference as further evidence of the position that the APA described that it
was known to incorporate damascene structures into integrated circuits.
Even assuming the Appellants’ argument is correct, the exclusion of this
reference from the rejection does not detract from the Examiner's position
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
damascene structures could be incorporated into integrated circuits. In fact,
Lopatin describes, in the Background of the Invention portion of the patent,
the suitability of incorporating damascene structures in circuit patterns (See
columns 1-2).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013