Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
CLAIMS 7-8
Claim 7 recites that the “liner-to-liner contact region further comprises a
second portion co-extensive with said lower conductive liner on a portion of a
second side of said lower level wire under said upper level wire.” Claim 8 recites
that the “liner-to-liner contact region further comprises a third portion co-extensive
with said lower conductive liner on an end of said lower level wire under said
upper level wire.”
The Examiner has rejected claims 7-8 over Farrar in view of Havemann.
The Examiner states that Havemann discloses the following:
The liner-to-liner contact region also comprises a second portion
(overlap portion of liner [sic, (i.e., encapsulation layer)] 48) co-extensive
with the lower liner [sic, (i.e., encapsulation material 36)] on a portion of a
second side (outer portion of liner [sic, (i.e., encapsulation material)] 36) of
the lower level wire and a third portion (overlap portion of liner [sic, (i.e.,
encapsulation layer)] 48 in the hole) co-extensive with the lower conductive
liner [sic, (i.e., encapsulation material 36)] on an end (inner portion of the
liner [sic, (i.e., encapsulation material)] 36) of the lower level wire, each
portion being under the upper level wire. (Answer, pages 5-6).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the barrier
layer-to-barrier layer (i.e., liner-to-liner) contact region of Farrar by adding the
second and third coextensive portions as taught by Havemann to form a contact
“without mechanical defects.” (Answer 6).
Appellants reiterate their argument that Havemann’s encapsulation layer
(i.e., upper conductive liner) 48 is non-conductive because it is made of silicon
nitride. (Br. 12). According to Appellants, because encapsulation layer 48 (i.e.,
upper conductive liner) is non-conductive it cannot meet the claim feature of an
“upper conductive liner.”
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007