Appeal 2007-1295
Application 10/109,713
reasonably expected that the process as disclosed by the prior art would have
been suitable for the formation of damascene structures.
Appellants contend a person skilled in the art would not have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Chen and Lopatin with Kikkawa
because Kikkawa teaches the direct patterning of MSZ, without using
photoresist and dryetching (See Kikkawa at 2). (Br. 9).
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. As acknowledged by
Appellants (Br. 9-10), Kikkawa specifically emphasizes that direct
patterning of low-k dielectric films is one of the most promising solutions
for reducing the process cost of future Cu interconnects" (Kikkawa at 2).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the process of
Kikkawa to gain the advantages disclosed therein. Further, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that MSZ could serve as the
barrier layer as disclosed by Kikkawa (Kikkawa at 2).
Claims 34 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Lopatin and APA or Kikkawa as applied to claims
31-43 above, and further in view of Klaus.
The Examiner contends that sequential ALD tungsten nitride would
have been obvious over the teachings of over Chen taken with Lopatin and
APA or Kikkawa, and alternatively, such would have been further obvious
over the teaching of Klaus. According to the Examiner, Klaus describes the
application of tungsten nitride using sequential ALD (Answer 5).
Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill in the art would also
not have been motivated to combine the references because of the specific
chemistry of each reference (Br. 12).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013