Appeal No. 1998-2671
Application No. 08/480,543
would exist only at the interface between the aluminum and the
silicide layer which occurs only at the upper portion of the via
hole. Any conclusion drawn by the Examiner that a formed
aluminum-silicide alloy would migrate from the upper interface
portion of the via hole to fill the hole cannot be based on the
disclosure of Mintz but, rather, only on unwarranted speculation.
In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), we would need to resort to speculation or
unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the factual basis
of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968), rehearing denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968). Accordingly,
since all of the claim limitations are not present in the
disclosure of Mintz, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of independent claim 10, as well as claims 11-13, and 18
dependent thereon, is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 3, 9-11, 13, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling
in view of Tracy.
As the basis for this obviousness rejection of
representative independent claim 10, the Examiner proposes to
modify the integrated circuit structure disclosure of Schilling
which describes, particularly illustrated in Figure 1b, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007