Appeal No. 1998-2671
Application No. 08/480,543
meeting all of the requirements of appealed claim 10. In this
regard, we reject as being unfounded Appellants’ argument that no
teaching exists in the prior art to provide enough refractory
metal to form an alloy to fill the contact hole opening. The
thickness of the refractory metal layer 32 of Schilling is
disclosed at column 2, line 60 as being 1800-2000 angstroms
thick, or within the 100-3000 angstrom range contemplated by
Appellants for their refractory layer (Specification, page 8).
Since, for all of the above reasons, it is our opinion that
the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness remains unrebutted
by any persuasive arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of representative claim 10, as well as
dependent claims 3, 9, and 18 which fall with claim 10, is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the obviousness rejection of
separately argued representative dependent claim 11, and claims
12 and 13 dependent thereon, directed to the formation of a
refractory metal compound layer underneath the deposited
refractory metal layer, we sustain this rejection as well. Our
review of Schilling indicates a clear disclosure of a refractory
metal compound layer (platinum silicide layer 30) formed under
refractory metal layer 32.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007