Appeal No. 2001-2461
Application No. 08/855,059
away from substrate temperatures higher than about 60°C (column
3, line 65 column 4, line 2.)
The examiner argues that the determination of workable
copper sputtering temperatures is within the level of the
ordinary skill in the art. (Answer, page 4.) The examiner,
however, has failed to show any reasonable expectation, or some
predictability, that Demaray’s method would be effective for
copper deposition at the temperatures recited in the appealed
claims. In re Shetty, 566 F.2d 81, 86, 191 USPQ 753, 756-57
(CCPA 1977).
For these reasons, we cannot uphold the examiner’s
rejection on this ground.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of Claims 12-18:
Demaray, Blackwell, Murarka, and Ho
Ho is cited merely for the use of tantalum as a barrier
layer material. (Answer, page 5.) Accordingly, the examiner
has not explained how Ho cures the fundamental deficiency in the
combination of Demaray, Blackwell, and Murarka.
It follows then that we also cannot uphold this rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007