Ex Parte Sidhwa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 9, 2009

10437871 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 9, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARDESHIR J. SIDHWA
____________

Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,8711
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:2 July 10, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
KARL EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge

1 Application filed May 13, 2003. The real party in interest is
STMicroelectronics, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 20-27, 30-33, 35-39, 44-48, 50 and 51. Claims 28 and 40-43 have
been allowed and claim 49 has been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of depositing very thick
layers of metal (e.g., 20,000 to 30,000 Å (Spec. 4:7-8)) using multiple
deposition chambers. (Spec. 1:4-6.) The thick layers of metal are deposited
on a semiconductor chip. (Spec. 1:4-5.)

Claim 27 is exemplary:
27. A semiconductor structure, comprising:

a semiconductor substrate having a conductive region therein;

a first insulating layer formed over the substrate;

a first metal layer formed on top of the first insulating layer;

an interconnect structure used to connect the first metal layer to the
conductive region of the substrate;

a second insulating layer formed on top of the first metal layer[;]

a second metal layer formed on top of the second insulating layer;

a third insulating layer formed on top of the second metal layer;

Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

3
a third metal layer formed on top of the third insulating layer;

a fourth insulating layer formed on top of the third metal layer; and

an upper metal layer formed overlying the fourth insulating layer, the
upper metal layer having a thickness that is in excess of 25,000 angstroms,
wherein said upper metal layer includes a first sublayer and a second
sublayer, the first and second sublayers having a same grain alignment and
being continuous with each other to form a single contiguous upper metal
layer.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Abiru US 6,747,355 B2 Jun. 8, 2004
(filed Jul. 17, 2002)
Harada US 6,476,491 B2 Nov. 5, 2002
(filed Jan. 10, 2001)
Shih3 US 6,329,722 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
Mitchell US 5,773,359 Jun. 30, 1998
Rao US 4,514,265 Apr. 30, 1985

Claims 20-25, 27, 30-33, 35-37, 39, 44-48, 50 and 51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Harada and Mitchell.
Claims 26 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Harada, Mitchell and Abiru.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. Except as

3 Shih was cited by the Examiner for evidentiary purposes to illustrate a
semiconductor device bond pad having a thickness of 1 to 3 microns.
(Ans. 8, 10.) Similarly, Rao was cited by the Examiner to illustrate a
bonding pad having a thickness of 6 to 8 microns. (Ans. 8, 10.)
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

4
noted in this decision, Appellant has not presented any substantive
arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or
related claims in each group. In the absence of a separate argument with
respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the representative independent
claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant has been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See id.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness in rejecting claims 20-27, 30-33, 35-39, 44-48, 50
and 51. (Br. 7.) In particular, Appellant argues that the combination of
Harada and Mitchell does not teach or suggest an “upper metal layer having
a thickness that is in excess of 25,000 angstroms” and “first and second
sublayers having a same grain alignment and being continuous with each
other to form a single contiguous upper metal layer,” as recited in
independent claim 27. (Br. 7-12.) Appellant presents similar arguments
regarding independent claims 31, 37 and 44 (Br. 12-16), which recite similar
limitations as independent claim 27.
Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Harada and Mitchell teaches an “upper metal layer having a
thickness that is in excess of 25,000 angstroms” and “first and second
sublayers having a same grain alignment and being continuous with each
other to form a single contiguous upper metal layer?”
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Harada
1. Harada is related to a “semiconductor device having a multilayer
wiring structure and pad electrodes protected from corrosion.”
(Col. 1, ll. 10-12.) Harada describes forming a pad electrode 26
including a metal wiring film 25 “with a thickness of 1.0 μm or
more.” (Col. 10, ll. 34-36; fig. 2G.) Metal wiring film 25 includes an
aluminum alloy layer 25b. (Col. 10, ll. 29-30; fig. 2G.)

Mitchell
2. Mitchell relates to “interconnect systems for semiconductor
components.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-8.) An interconnect system 31 includes a
metal layer 23, an under bump metallurgy 25 and an interconnect
bump 29. (Col. 2, ll. 7-9; fig. 2.) Metal layer 23 “preferably
comprises aluminum” (col. 2, l. 16) and has “a thickness of
approximately 1-3 microns” in a preferred embodiment (col. 2, ll. 22-
23). “Metal layer 23 is formed or fabricated over substrate 21 using,
for example, conventional sputtering, photolithographic, and etching
processes.” (Col. 2, ll. 17-20.)

Shih
3. Shih relates to “interconnection and packaging of [an] integrated
circuit having copper bond pads.” (Col. 1, ll. 7-9.) Shih describes a
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

6
semiconductor device 11 with a bonding pad 100 attached to a wire
bond 130. (Col. 4, ll. 15-16; fig. 1A.) In a preferred embodiment, the
bond pad 100 is composed of copper/tin and has a thickness of 1 to 3
microns. (Col. 6, ll. 26-27.)

Rao
4. Rao describes forming a bonding pad 50 on a device 30. (Col. 3,
ll. 36-41; fig. 6.) The bonding pad 50 can be composed of gold with a
thickness of 6 to 8 microns. (Abstract.)

Specification
5. In the “Background of the Invention,” Appellant provides a general
statement of potential problems which may occur during the
deposition of a thick metal layer. (Spec. 2:8-15.) For a very thick
metal layer, Appellant discloses that “metal grains are often abnormal
and discontinuities result[ ] in loss of yield due to abnormal grain
growth” and “grain growth may vary drastically within the deposition
chamber.” (Spec. 2:9-11.) The Specification provides no description
of experimental conditions for depositing the thick metal layer or any
characterization of the grain structure.

6. In one embodiment for forming the thick layer, Appellant describes
that “the metal layer 24 has a first portion, or sublayer, 26 and a
second portion, or sublayer, 28.” (Spec. 6:11-12; fig. 4.) “In some
embodiments, the grain structure will not be uniform throughout and
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

7
the orientation may change, but a single metal layer still results.”
(Spec. 7:1-3.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On appeal, all timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments
are considered by the Board. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. When
that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to rebut. Id. The
Board has broad discretion as to the weight to be given declarations offered
in the course of prosecution, and it may properly decline to accord weight to
declaration statements unsupported by corroborating documentation. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, opinion evidence in a declaration has little value without
factual support. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see
also In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 456 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or
declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case,
“some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one
skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him.” (emphasis added)). If
the Applicant produces rebuttal evidence of adequate weight, the prima facie
case of unpatentability is dissipated. See Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472.
Thereafter, patentability is determined in view of the entire record. Id.
However, on appeal to the Board it is the Appellant’s burden to establish
that the Examiner did not sustain the necessary burden and to show that the
Examiner erred. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

8
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application.” Id. at 1313.
The determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is
based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and
defined by the process. In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 653 (CCPA 1973). That
is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious
from the product of the prior art, even if the “prior product was made by a
different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “[T]he
Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima
facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar
nature than . . . when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.” In
re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 (CCPA 1974). “Where a product-by-
process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical,
although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants
to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference
between the claimed product and the prior art product.” In re Marosi, 710
F.2d 799, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

9
ANALYSIS
We do not find Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 20-27, 30-33, 35-39, 44-48, 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) to be meritorious.
Claims 20-25, 27, 30-33, 35-37, 39, 44-48, 50 and 51
Appellant’s arguments (Br. 7-12) that the combination of Harada and
Mitchell does not teach or suggest an “upper metal layer having a thickness
that is in excess of 25,000 angstroms” and “first and second sublayers
having a same grain alignment and being continuous with each other to form
a single contiguous upper metal layer,” as recited in independent claim 27,
are not persuasive.
The Examiner found that the aluminum alloy layer 25b of Harada
corresponds to the claimed “metal layer.” (Ans. 4; FF 1.) The Examiner
acknowledged that Harada teaches that the metal wiring film 25 is formed
“with a thickness of 1.0 μm [10,000 angstroms] or more” (Ans. 4; FF 1) and
cites Mitchell for the disclosure of a metal layer 23 with a thickness of 1 to 3
microns (10,000 to 30,000 angstroms) (Ans. 5; FF 2.) The Examiner also
interpreted the limitation “first and second sublayers having a same grain
alignment and being continuous with each other to form a single contiguous
upper metal layer” as a product-by-process limitation because “the claims
are directed towards [a] product, the process of forming this product is only
considered in view of the final structural product formed,” which is
disclosed by the combination of Harada and Mitchell. (Ans. 10-11.) The
Examiner further interpreted the claim language “sublayer” as a portion of a
single grain. (Ans. 12-13.) Thus, the Examiner concluded, if a “first
sublayer” was one portion of a single grain and a “second sublayer” was
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

10
another portion of the same grain, then the first sublayer and second sublayer
would have “a same grain alignment.” (Ans. 12-13.) Under the broadest
reasonable construction of the claim consistent with the Specification, we
agree with the Examiner.
Appellant argues that “a person skilled in the art would not construe
Harada’s metal wiring film 25 as encompassing a contiguous metal layer
having a thickness in excess of 25,000 angstroms.” (Br. 7.) Appellant also
argues that a “thick deposition of metal layers in the prior art results in
discontinuities in metal grain and bad grain structure that can potentially
cause lower conductivity.” (Br. 8.) To support these positions, Appellant
submitted an Affidavit by Richard A. Blanchard, Ph.D., dated November 28,
2006 (“First Blanchard Aff.”), which was accompanied by additional
evidence.4 (Br. 7-8.) We are neither persuaded by the First Blanchard
Affidavit nor the additional evidence cited therein.

4 As additional evidence, the First Blanchard Affidavit cites: (1) MICHAEL
QUIRK ET AL., SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 303
(Prentice-Hall 2001) (“Quirk”) (“The upper noncritical layers on a wafer
(e.g., metal layer with bonding pads) can range up to 20,000 Å thick”); (2)
M. Igarashi et al., The Best Combination of Aluminum and Copper
Interconnects for a High Performance 0.18μm CMOS Logic Device, INT’L
ELECTRON DEVICES MEETING TECHNICAL DIG. 831 tbl. 1 (1998) (“Igarashi”)
(disclosing that copper layers “Metal-5” and “Metal-6” have a thickness of
1.33μm); (3) J. T. Pan et al., Integrated Interconnect Module Development,
VMIC CONF. 47 (1996) (“Pan”) (“Metal stack thickness ranged from 0.6 μm
to greater than 1.0 μm, and consisted of Ti/TiN barrier layer, Al-Si-Cu
metallization, and TiN anti-reflective-coating layer”); (4) P. Quintana et al.,
Thickness Effects on Aluminum Thin Films, 9 SUPERFICIES Y VACIO
[SURFACE AND VACUUM] 280 (1999) (“Quintana”) (“Roughness
measurements made on the AFM images show a linear increase with
thickness and an asintotic behavior with time after growth”); and (5) G.
Vergason et al., Selection of Materials and Techniques for Performance
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

11
First, to support the position that “a person skilled in the art would not
construe Harada’s metal wiring film 25 as encompassing a contiguous metal
layer having a thickness in excess of 25,000 angstroms” (Br. 7), the First
Blanchard Affidavit relies on Quirk, Igarashi and Pan (First Blanchard Aff.
¶¶ 8-10). The First Blanchard Affidavit states that this evidence illustrates
that “a person skilled in the art . . . would not be motivated or suggested to
design a contiguous metal layer in excess of 25,000 angstroms.” (First
Blanchard Aff., ¶¶ 8-10.) However, this evidence merely illustrates several
instances in which the thickness of an upper metal layer of a semiconductor
structure is under 25,000 Å. It does not rebut the disclosure in Mitchell of a
metal layer 23 having a thickness of 1 to 3 microns (10,000 to 30,000
angstroms). (FF 2.) Likewise, this evidence does not rebut the disclosure in
Shih of a copper/tin bond pad 100 with a thickness of 1 to 3 microns (10,000
to 30,000 angstroms) (FF 3) or the disclosure in Rao of a gold bonding pad
with a thickness of 6 to 8 microns (60,000 to 80,000 angstroms) (FF 4).
Furthermore, Quirk, Igarashi and Pan do not disclose any negative
characteristic associated with depositing an upper metal layer in excess of
25,000 Å. Thus, the First Blanchard Affidavit’s statement that “a person
skilled in the art . . . would not be motivated or suggested to design a
contiguous metal layer in excess of 25,000 angstroms” (First Blanchard Aff.,
¶¶ 8-10) lacks persuasive factual support.
Second, to support the position that a “thick deposition of metal layers
in the prior art results in discontinuities in metal grain and bad grain

Coatings, 42ND ANN. TECH. CONF. PROC. 55 (Society of Vacuum Coaters
1999) (“Vergason”) (“As shown in Figure 5 the roughness [of aluminum] in
most cases, increases with coating thickness”).
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

12
structure that can potentially cause lower conductivity” (Br. 8), the First
Blanchard Affidavit relies upon page 2, lines 8-15 of the Specification, in
addition to Quintana and Vergason (First Blanchard Aff. ¶¶ 11-13).
However, page 2, lines 8-15 of the Specification merely provides a general
statement of potential problems which may occur during deposition of a
thick metal layer (i.e., “metal grains are often abnormal” and “grain growth
may vary drastically within the deposition chamber” (emphasis added)).
(FF 5.) The Specification does not provide any experimental conditions
(e.g., deposition technique or deposition parameters) or experimental
characterization of the metal layer (e.g., grain structure, conductivity as a
function of film thickness or analysis of surface roughness) to document
abnormal grain growth, nor does it state how frequently the potential
problems result. (See FF 5.) The First Blanchard Affidavit further cites
Quintana and Vergason to illustrate that the roughness of a metal layer
increases with thickness and contends that “increasing . . . thickness would
have the undesirable effect of decreasing conductivity” (First Blanchard Aff.
¶¶ 12-13). However, Quintana and Vergason do not describe surface
roughness as a negative characteristic or provide a relationship between
surface roughness and reduced conductivity. Furthermore, the Specification
does not describe any relationship between surface roughness of the metal
layer and reduced conductivity. Thus, the First Blanchard Affidavit’s
statement that increasing the thickness of the metal layer “would have the
undesirable effect of decreasing conductivity” (First Blanchard Aff.,
¶¶ 12-13) lacks persuasive factual support.
Therefore, we find that the First Blanchard Affidavit does not
establish that “a person skilled in the art would not construe Harada’s metal
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

13
wiring film 25 as encompassing a contiguous metal layer having a thickness
in excess of 25,000 angstroms” (Br. 7). Likewise, we find that the First
Blanchard Affidavit does not establish that a “thick deposition of metal
layers in the prior art results in discontinuities in metal grain and bad grain
structure that can potentially cause lower conductivity” (Br. 8).
Appellant further argues that the conventional sputtering techniques
used to form the metal layer 23 of Mitchell in excess of 25,000 angstroms
would result in grain non-uniformity, grain discontinuities and other
undesirable effects. (Br. 10-12.) To support this position, Appellant
submitted a Second Affidavit by Richard A. Blanchard, Ph.D., dated June
25, 2007 (“Second Blanchard Aff.”). (Br. 10-12.) We are not persuaded by
the Second Blanchard Affidavit.
The Second Blanchard Affidavit relies upon page 2, lines 8-15 of the
Specification as evidence that the metal layer 23 of Mitchell is deficient
(Second Blanchard Aff., ¶ 7). As discussed above, this paragraph provides a
general statement of potential problems which may occur during the
deposition of thick metal layers and provides no experimental conditions or
experimental characterization of the metal layer to illustrate abnormal grain
growth, nor does it state how frequently the potential problems result.
(FF 5.) Furthermore, Mitchell does not provide information in any detail
about the “conventional sputtering” of the metal layer 23 (e.g., model of the
sputtering apparatus or deposition parameters) (see FF 2). Because of the
multitude of unknown experimental variables, the Second Blanchard
Affidavit has not established that the properties of the metal film 23 of
Mitchell can be accurately characterized as stated in the Second Blanchard
Affidavit based on the disclosure of page 2, lines 8-15 of the Specification.
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

14
The Second Blanchard Affidavit has provided no additional evidence to
support the disclosure in paragraphs 8-10. Thus, the Second Blanchard
Affidavit’s statement that “[a] person skilled in the art would therefore
understand that Mitchell’s conventionally fabricated metal layer 23 would
exhibit . . . defects, if attempts are made to provide said metal layer with a
thickness in excess of 25,000 angstroms” (Second Blanchard Aff., ¶ 10)
lacks persuasive factual support.
Therefore, we find that the Second Blanchard Affidavit does not
establish that the conventional sputtering techniques used to form the metal
layer 23 of Mitchell in excess of 25,000 angstroms would result in grain
non-uniformity, grain discontinuities and other undesirable effects.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Harada and Mitchell
does not teach or suggest the limitation of “first and second sublayers having
a same grain alignment and being continuous with each other to form a
single contiguous upper metal layer.” (Br. 8-9, 10-12.) We do not find this
argument persuasive.
The Examiner interpreted the claim limitation of “first and second
sublayers having a same grain alignment and being continuous with each
other to form a single contiguous upper metal layer” as a product-by-process
limitation. (Ans. 10-11.) In articulating that the final product of “a single
contiguous upper metal layer” was taught by the combination of Harada and
the metal layer 23 of Mitchell (Ans. 10-11), the Examiner provided a
rationale tending to show that “a single contiguous upper metal layer” of
claim 27 appears to be the same or similar to the metal layer 23 of Mitchell.
Therefore, the burden shifted to Appellant to come forward with evidence
establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

15
prior art product. However, Appellant has not provided any convincing
evidence to illustrate that “a single contiguous upper metal layer” of claim
27 possesses an unobvious difference over the metal layer 23 of Mitchell.
The Examiner also interpreted the claim language “sublayer” as a
portion of a single grain. (Ans. 12-13.) Using this claim interpretation, the
Examiner found that a “first sublayer” corresponded to one portion of a
single grain and a “second sublayer” corresponded to another portion of the
same grain. Thus, the Examiner concluded, the first sublayer and second
sublayer would have “a same grain alignment.” (Ans. 12-13.) Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Harada and Mitchell
teaches the limitation of “first and second sublayers having a same grain
alignment and being continuous with each other to form a single contiguous
upper metal layer.” Appellant’s Specification describes that, in one
embodiment, “the metal layer 24 has a first portion, or sublayer, 26 and a
second portion, or sublayer, 28.” (FF 6.) In other words, a “sublayer” can
be reasonably construed as any “portion” of the metal layer, including a
portion of a single grain. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner that one portion
of a single grain of the metal layer 23 of Mitchell corresponds to a “first
sublayer” and another portion of the same grain corresponds to a “second
sublayer.” Appellant has not pointed to any particular definition of
“sublayer” in the Specification that would require a different interpretation.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Harada and Mitchell teaches the limitations “upper
metal layer having a thickness that is in excess of 25,000 angstroms” and
“first and second sublayers having a same grain alignment and being
Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

16
continuous with each other to form a single contiguous upper metal layer,”
as recited in claim 27.
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Harada
and Mitchell. Independent claims 31, 37 and 44 recite limitations similar to
those in claim 27. Thus, we conclude that Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 31, 37 and 44 for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 27. Because Appellant has not
presented separate arguments regarding claims 20-25, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39,
45-48, 50 and 51, we affirm the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons as claims 27, 31, 37 and 44, from which they
depend.

Claims 26 and 38
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 26 and 38 separately (Br. 17), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent claims
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellant summarily alleges that these
claims are nonobvious because “Abiru does not supply the missing teachings
of Harada and/or Mitchell.” (Br. 17.) Because Appellant has not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for
dependent claims 26 and 38 based on the teachings of Harada and Mitchell,
we will sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 38 for the reasons discussed
with respect to independent claims 27 and 37, from which claims 26 and 28
depend.

Appeal 2009-003481
Application 10/437,871

17
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20-27,
30-33, 35-39, 44-48, 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 20-27, 30-33, 35-39, 44-48, 50 and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rvb

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.
MAIL STATION 2346
1310 ELECTRONICS DRIVE
CARROLLTON, TX 75006