Appeal 2007-1295
Application 10/109,713
knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth
by the solicitor, on a conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge
and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any
specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”); In re Hoeschele,
406 F.2d 1403, 1406-07, 160 USPQ 809, 811-812 (CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is
proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the references but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom...”). The analysis supporting obviousness,
however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements”
in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter under § 103,
the Examiner has relied on the disclosures of Chen in view of Lopatin, the
APA and Kikkawa (Answer 3-6).
Chen teaches forming low dielectric layer 204 on copper line 202,
forming dual damascene including barrier 212 and copper 214/216. (See col.
3, l. 32 to col. 5, l. 35 and Fig. 2D). Chen discloses the barrier layer 212 is
formed using a material that can prevent copper atoms from diffusing into
the inter-metal dielectric layer 204 (Col. 3, ll. 47-51). Chen does not
describe the use of methylsilsesquiazane as dielectric material and tungsten
nitride as the barrier layer.
Lopatin describes an improved interconnect structure including
improved barrier and seed layers as well as the method of forming these
structures and layers to overcome recognized drawbacks existing in the
processing of copper interconnect formation. These drawbacks include
difficulties in forming seed and barrier layers in vias and trenches having
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013