Appeal 2006-2499
Application 10/268,735
findings (3) and (4) listed above, Singhvi teaches the desire to minimize the
thickness of the barrier layer while disclosing an integrated circuit very
similar to that claimed by Appellants with a preferred barrier layer thickness
of about 100 to 400 Angstroms. Accordingly, we determine that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to form a barrier layer
of 100 Angstroms thickness for the benefits taught by Singhvi.
With regard to the reflectance property, as shown by factual finding
(5) listed above, we determine that Lee teaches the desired high reflectivity
of copper films in an integrated circuit structure, while also teaching how to
achieve this desired high reflectivity. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments
(Br. 5-6), the selection of values from the range of thicknesses taught by
Singhvi or the range of reflectivity taught by Lee would have been prima
facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art. See In re Peterson, supra.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the sole ground of rejection in this appeal. The decision of the Examiner is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
LSI CORPORATION
1621 BARBER LANE
MS: D-106
MILPITAS, CA 95035
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013