Appeal No. 1999-1133
Application No. 08/766,199
sidewalls and exposed first metal bottom” [reply brief-page 2].
Appellants’ argument in this regard is not persuasive because the examiner has made a reasonable
observation that if the nitrogen-containing plasma applied in the reference has similar properties and is
within similar ranges of properties as that disclosed by appellants, it would appear that the nitrogen-
containing plasma of the reference would also perform a cleaning function, as does appellants.
Appellants have not addressed the examiner’s observation and so have not denied the examiner’s
allegation. To merely say that the reference does not employ the word “cleaning,” is not a persuasive
argument. Moreover, it is questionable whether there is even adequate support for the claimed cleaning
“the via sidewalls and exposed first metal bottom.” Page 11 of the instant specification mentions that
residue “must be cleansed from the cavity prior to further processing to avoid the formation of ‘open
vias/contacts’ that establish non-ohmic (high resistance) contacts.” Page 12 of the specification
indicates that a “pre-conditioning/cleansing of previously formed cavities, such as vias 28" is provided.
The sentence bridging pages 12-13 even states that the “use of nitrogen also permits for nitridation of
metallic surfaces exposed in the bottom of the cavity/via.” However, we find no clear disclosure of
cleaning both the “via sidewalls and exposed first metal bottom with a nitrogen-containing plasma,” as
now claimed. Thus, we are not persuaded by appellants’ argument regarding the cleaning by nitrogen-
containing plasma step.
We are also not persuaded by appellants’ argument that the step of forming a liner on the via
sidewalls and bottom is not taught or suggested by Ohtsuka. The examiner pointed to Ohtsuka’s
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007