The claims use the word "contains" and therefore do not exclude the presence of a primary brightener in addition to the phenylpropiolamide and saccharin. The claimed proportion of phenylpropiolamide (0.2-0.6 g/1) does not distinguish from the top figure of 0.5 g/1 in the reference, from the top figure of 0.3 g/1 for the preferred range in the reference, or from the optimum quantity of 0.2 g/1 in the reference.

Claim 20 was also found to be met by the reference. With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 on Hartman alone, the board referred to its discussion of claims 16-18 and 20 concerning the composition aspects, stating additionally:

Considering the manipulative aspects (current density and relative velocity) of claims 1, 2, and 5 through 13, in particular, it is seen that Hartman et al. may operate at a current density as high as 12 asd * * *, thus meeting the claim language of "at least 10 asd." The patentees refer to agitation * * *, and claims 1, 2, 5 through 10, 12, and 13 refer only broadly to "a high relative velocity." The quoted phrase is too uncertain in meaning to be relied upon as distinguishing over the Hartman et al. disclosure.

Lastly, the board held:

After careful study of all of appellant's arguments, we have come to the conclusion that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 13, 15 through 18, and 20 on the cited references, principally the combination of Hartman et al. with Wesley et al., is sound and must be sustained.

Wesley et al. clearly teach the advantages of high current density and high relative velocity in order to attain a higher rate of deposition, and we perceive no good reason why the observations made by the authors of the article would not be equally applicable to the plating baths of Hartman et al. The matter of the composition of the bath has been discussed above and need not be repeated at this point.

It is true that Boelter, Jr. and Kennedy et al. relate to the deposition of copper, but they clearly disclose impingement techniques to produce a high relative velocity and, to this extent, are certainly pertinent to this particular feature of claims 12 and 13.

Appellant alleges error on the board's part in several respects. Interpreting Hartman, appellant takes the view that the reference discloses acetylacetone not as a secondary brightener but merely as an auxiliary additive which cooperates with PPA to give a semi-bright deposit and only with such additive may the entire current density range up to 12 asd be used. Moreover, appellant alleges, the reference contemplates the use of the secondary brightener PPA only when used in conjunction with primary brighteners since the patent states:

It was found that both phenylpropiolic acid and phenylpropiolamide act as auxiliary brighteners in conjunction with the conventional sulfonated organic secondary brighteners such as saccharin, sulfonated dibenzothiophene dioxide, and in conjunction with such primary brighteners as the heterocyclic, aliphatic, and aromatic nitriles, triphenylmethane, etc., to yield mirror-bright nickel.

Appellant contends that his process results in mirror-bright nickel using PPA alone or in combination. The agitation disclosed in Hart· man is alleged to be "little or moderate agitation."

Wesley, appellant argues, lacks pertinence because it is limited to conventional Watts-type baths and is silent as to brighteners or additives to be used in the plating baths. Boelter and Kennedy are alleged to be even less pertinent since they relate to electrodeposition of copper. Furthermore, it is argued, appellant is using high speeds together with a specific plating bath. One cannot predict that manipulative aspects found operable with one type of plating bath with or without additives would be operable with a different bath, appellant argues; therefore, one skilled in the art would not combine the various reference teachings. The references themselves, it is alleged, are devoid of any suggestion that a combination of these teachings would permit attainment of any desired results. Hartman's preferred bath is a Watts-type, while Wesley, it is contended, discloses that such baths suffer disadvantages when plating at high current densities and therefore no good reasons for believing that the observation of Wesley would be applicable in any way to the baths of Hartman exist.

[1] We are not persuaded by appellant's position that "while the individual steps may be shown in the various prior art references, none of the references suggests the combination of steps as claimed." Just as piecemeal reconstruction of the prior art by selecting teachings in light of appellant's disclosure is contrary to the requirements of 35 USC 103 so is the failure to consider as a whole the references collectively as well as individually. Pertinent here is the view of this court expressed in In re Rosselet, 52 CCPA 1533, 347 F. 2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (1965), that

the test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all of the references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art * * *.

[2] Moreover, we do not agree with appellant that one skilled in the art would expect the manipulative aspects of Wesley to be inapplicable to the bath of Hartman. As we again observed in In re Passal (No. 8319), decided concurrently herewith, obviousness does not require absolute predictability. Nor have we seen here clear and convincing evidence of unexpected results.

We are in agreement with the board that the references as applied here render the claims obvious. The view we take with regard to the rejection of all the claims on the combination of references under 35 USC 103 renders it unnecessary to consider the other grounds of rejection here.

The decision of the board is, accordingly, affirmed.

416 F.2d 1391; 163 USPQ 550

ROBERT N. NOYCE v. JACK ST. CLAIR KILBY (No. 8182)

PATENTS

JACK ST. CLAIR KILBY V. ROBERT N. NOYCE (No. 8205)

1. INTERFERENCE-INTERFERENCE IN FACT

1. INTERFERENCE-INTERFERENCE IN FACT

Criterion for determining whether application supports count is whether the necessary and only reasonable construction to be given the disclosure by one skilled in the art is one which provides such support; requirement is the same where one relies on earlier application for support in order to obtain benefit of its filing date as where support in an application directly involved in interference is in issue.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, November 6,

[Modified.]

1969*

Appeal from Patent Office, Interference No. 92,841

Roger S. Borovoy, attorney of record, for appellant and cross-appellee. J. Harold Kilcoyne, Lawrence B. Dodds, of counsel.

Ellsworth H. Mosher for appellee and cross-appellant. Samuel M. Mims, Jr., Stevens, Davis, Miller & Mosher, of counsel.

[Oral argument October 10, 1969 by Mr. Borovoy and Mr. Mosher]

Before RICH, Almond, BaldWIN, LANE, A8sociate Judges, and MCGUIRE, Judge, sitting by designation.

ALMOND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

These are cross-appeals from the decision of the Board of Patent Interferences awarding priority of invention as to counts 1-4 to Kilby and counts 5 and 6 to Noyce in Interference No. 92,841 involving Noyce patent No. 2,981,877, issued April 25, 1961 on an application 1 filed July 30, 1959, and Kilby application serial No. 169,557, filed January 29, 1962.

The sole issue is whether counts 1-4, the subject matter of No. 8182 taken by Noyce, and count 6,2 involved in No. 8205 brought by Kilby, are supported by a prior copending application of Kilby, serial No. 791,602, filed February 6, 1959 (hereinafter the '602 application). For reasons hereinafter stated, we find that the counts in issue are not supported by the '602 application, and therefore reverse the decision of the board as to counts 1-4 in No. 8182 and affirm it as to count 6 in No. 8205.

*Petition for rehearing denied Jan. 29, 1970.

1 Serial No. 830,507.

2 As to count 5, which was also involved in No. 8205, Kilby withdraws his appeal in his brief here and the appeal therefore is dismissed as to that count.

Issued June 23, 1964 as patent No. 3,138,743.

The subject matter in issue is a semiconductor device including an electrical lead or connection thereto, which device is suitable for use in integrated electronic circuits of very small size. Count 1 is representative:

1. A semiconductor device comprising a body of semiconductor having a surface, said body containing adjacent P-type and N-type regions with a junction therebetween extending to said surface, two closely spaced contacts a [sic] adherent to said surface upon opposite sides of and adjacent to one portion of said junction, an insulating layer consisting essentially of oxide of said semiconductor on and adherent to said surface, said layer extending across a different portion of said junction, and an electrical connection to one of said contacts comprising a conductor adherent to said layer, said conductor extending from said one contact over said layer across said different portion of the junction, thereby providing electrical connections to both of the closely spaced contacts.

A multi-device semiconductor and lead structure embodying the invention is shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of the Noyce patent, plan and sectional elevation, respectively, as follows:

As an example of the minute size of the circuits, the dimensions of the semiconductor wafer of Fig. 6a of the Kilby '602 application, which figure is reproduced and discussed hereinafter, are given as 0.200 x 0.080 x 0.0025 inches.

The illustrated device includes a semiconductor body 11 of silicon of the P-type with one side having a surface 12 and the other side plated with a metal coating 13 which serves as an electrical contact. A plurality of circuit elements are formed within and on the body of silicon by diffusing N-type and P-type dopants, restricted to specific areas by known masking techniques, through the surface 12 to form a plurality of N-type and P-type semiconductor regions which are separated from the underlying P-type region and from each other by a plurality of disked, P-N junctions of various diameters and depths. Toward the left end of the structure illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 is shown an N-type region overlying a small P-type region and separated therefrom by a disked junction 14. The small P-type region overlies another N-type region, and the latter N-type region in turn overlies the large P-type region comprising the bulk of the body and is separated therefrom by a disked junction 15. A discoid metal contact 16, adherent to surface 12 within junction 14, makes electrical connection to the upper N-type region. Electrical connection to the two regions between junctions 14 and 15 is made through a C-shaped metal contact 17 adherent to those regions. Since the two intermediate regions of semiconductor material are electrically interconnected by the contact 17, the resulting structure comprises two rectifying P-N junctions in series circuit.

Except for the contacts 16 and 17 and the contacts for other semiconductor devices shown to the right of the device just described, the entire surface 12 is covered with an insulating layer of oxidized silicon. That insulating layer may be formed upon the exposed surface of the silicon during the diffusion of the dopants into the silicon and the contact areas subsequently cleared of the layer by photoengraving techniques. Afterward, conductive metal such as aluminum may be deposited by vacuum deposition and photoengraving procedures may be used subsequently to remove all the deposited metal except that forming the contacts, such as 16 and 17, and electrical connecting leads thereto such as are shown at 28 and 30. Thus the metal lead strip 30 constituting the conductor from contact 16 passes over junctions 14 and 15 in insulated relationship thereto as the result of intervening oxide layer 27. The Noyce specification emphasizes throughout that the lead strips or conductors are adherent to the oxide layer.

The conductor 30 similarly passes in insulated relationship over another junction 18 of a semiconductor device designed to serve as a capacitor to make electrical connection to terminal 19 of that device. Additional semiconductor devices shown in the drawing include a transistor.