Appeal No. 2002-1992
Application 09/206,170
surface contamination the [sic, that] results in the formation of
copper dendrites (application page 3 lines 20-30).” Grieger,
however, does not disclose the amount of dielectric material
which is removed by his method,4 and does not mention copper
dendrites. Thus, contrary to the examiner’s argument, Grieger
does not disclose surface dielectric material removal which
reduces formation of copper dendrites. The examiner has not
provided evidence or technical reasoning which shows that Grieger
removes an amount of dielectric material which is sufficient to
prevent the formation and/or growth of Cu or Cu alloy dendrites
from the lines into the dielectric layer or to reduce such
formation by any amount which reasonably can be considered
substantial.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the methods recited in the appellants’ independent
claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of these claims and dependent claims 3, 6-9, 11-
14 and 18-22.
4
4 Grieger’s table 1 presents the results of a study of the
relative rates at which his etchant removes silica and BPSG, but
Grieger does not disclose either the treatment time used in his
method or the amount of dielectric removed by that method.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007