Appeal No. 2004-1886
Application No. 10/117,613
alloy film.” On page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that
while Gambino teaches an aligned method for forming alloy films
(hence, appellants do not dispute that Gambino teaches a self-
aligned method), Gambino teaches a method for use in a
completely different manner than that recited in appellants’
claims. Appellants argue that the alloy layer 60 of Gambino is
used to protect a metal line over, or on top of, the alloy layer
60, and therefore is not an etch stop layer for protecting a
metal under the alloy layer.
Appellants also argue that Kasahara and Gambino each
teaches a process for a purpose that is completely different
than that of the other reference, and that neither reference has
shown the desirability to combine with the other reference and
therefor there can be no motivation for combining the teachings
of Kasahara and Gambino. Brief, page 7.
We refer to the examiner’s position on pages 4-5 of the
answer and incorporate it as our own herein. Also, we refer to
the examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments as set forth on
pages 5-7 of the answer and incorporate it also as own herein.
As explained on page 6 of the answer, Gambino teaches that metal
alloy 60 is not undercut during the etching process and therefor
contact 35 under metal alloy 60 will be protected during the
etching process. The examiner correctly concludes, therefore,
that the teaching of Gambino indicates that metal alloy 60
protects contact 35 under the metal alloy 60. The examiner also
correctly concludes that because the metal alloy 60 of Gambino
is not affected by the etching process, it functions as an etch
stop layer. We agree, and hence, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ arguments that Gambino is dissimilar from Kasahara
such that the two references cannot be combined.
1 The Japanese reference is provided with an English translation of record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007