Appeal No. 1999-1655
Application No. 08/722,904
in an atmosphere.” (See Choi at col.2, lines 26-29.) From the specific teachings of Choi
with respect to the formation of the layers and the specific processes used for each layer, it
is unreasonable for the examiner to maintain that the third tungsten layer/film 6 is formed by
ion implantation. Here, Choi specifically teaches deposition for layer 6 as opposed to the
ion implantation which is specifically taught for layers 2 and 4. The examiner has not
maintained that these methodologies are equivalent or that one is obvious in light of the
other. The examiner merely maintains that Choi teaches ion implantation for the vertical
surface regions. We disagree with the examiner and will not sustain the rejection of claim
1. With respect to claim 2 appellant argues that the combination of Choi and Gelatos does
not anneal the dopants in the sidewalls. (See brief at page 4.) We agree with appellant
and will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2.
With respect to independent claim 3, the examiner relies on Fig. 2 of Choi for the
teachings of ion implantation to improve the adhesion to the trench. Here, we note that
the first layer of tungsten 2 is formed by ion implantation in the trench in an oxide layer 1.
The examiner maintains that layer 1 is a dielectric layer. We agree with the examiner that
the oxide layer may be a dielectric layer with trenches therein. (See answer at page 3.)
The trenches are then filled with copper.
The examiner maintains that Choi does not teach the annealing of tungsten and metal
after the trench is filled. (See answer at page 3.) We note that Choi teaches annealing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007