Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner does not cite where Havemann
teaches a “via” is not persuasive. (Br. 13). Havemann discloses that his method
forms “mechanically robust vias” (Havemann, abstract). Moreover, Havemann
discloses that Figures 3A to 3G, the embodiment used by the Examiner in his
rejection, show an “encapsulation type process for vias and conductors.”
(Havemann, col. 4, ll. 55-56). Thus, Havemann clearly discloses vias in the Figure
3A to Figure 3G embodiment.
The claim feature “at least a portion of the bottom of a via extending below a
top surface of said lower wire level” (claim 10) is similar to the claim feature, “at
least a portion of the bottom of said upper level wire extending below a top surface
of said lower wire level” (claim 1). As aforementioned, Havemann teaches a
“via.” As we noted with respect to claim 1, Havemann discloses “a portion of the
bottom of said upper level wire extending below a top surface of said lower wire
level”, and there is motivation provided by Havemann to combine such a feature
with Farrar.4 Accordingly, Havemann discloses the “via” feature of claim 10 (i.e.,
“at least a portion of the bottom of a via extending below a top surface of said
lower wire level.”).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner provides no reason for
combining “Farrar with Havemann” for the “at least a portion of the bottom of the
via extending below a top surface of said lower wire level” feature, the Examiner
provides motivation for combining Havemann’s overlapping encapsulation
to remedy such deleterious effects. (Br. 13-15). We addressed these arguments in
our discussion of claim 1 above. Our reasons for being unconvinced by these
arguments also applies to claim 10.
4 See our discussion of claim 1 for a complete exposition of our position with
respect to this claim language.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007