Appeal No. 1999-0382
Application 08/436,133
Appellant argues that the groupings are proper (RBr4), but
does not explain how claims 16-18, which depend on claim 8, can
be logically grouped to stand or fall together with the rest of
the claims of Group A which depend from claim 1. Accordingly, we
find that Group A includes only claims 1-4, 6, and 7.
Group A ) claims 1-4, 6, and 7
Initially, in the limitation "said third dielectric layer
containing voids which allow a chemical wet etch to pass through
said third dielectric layer to said second dielectric layer," we
interpret "which allow a chemical wet etch to pass through said
third dielectric layer to said second dielectric layer" to be
like a whereby clause which indicates that voids will necessarily
give this result if the area of the third dielectric layer
contained voids is subjected to a wet etch. The limitation is
met even if voids to do not occur at a location, such as the
location of a contact via, which is actually etched. No actual
chemical wet etch step is recited.
The issue is whether Koyama teaches or suggests "said third
dielectric layer containing voids."
The Examiner finds (FR3; EA4): "As stated in the
specification, 'voids' occur because of the inherent nature of
the material." Appellant does not disagree. However, Appellant
argues, voids do not inherently occur in every dielectric or
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007