Appeal No. 1999-0382
Application 08/436,133
unsupported speculation. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967) (it is improper to resort to
speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for a rejection). We conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to the limitation of "said third dielectric layer
containing voids." Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-4, 6,
and 7 is reversed.
Group B ) claims 8-18
The Examiner finds that the APA teaches the claimed
invention except for a second conductive layer and a fourth
dielectric layer (FR6; EA7). The Examiner finds that Nagamine
discloses the use of second conductive layer and concludes that
it would have been obvious to provide a second electrically
conductive layer to facilitate electrical communication within
the semiconductor device (FR6; EA7). The Examiner finds that
Nagamine teaches the use of a conformal silicon nitride layer
sandwiched between two oxide layers and concludes that "it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
the Appellant's disclosed prior art with a silicon nitride layer
of oxide to preserve the structural integrity of the contact
structure" (FR6; EA7).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007