Appeal 2007-2285
Application 10/871,151
a conductive barrier layer comprising tantalum nitride disposed
directly on the conductive reactive layer;
a copper layer disposed directly on the conductive barrier layer; and
an anti-reflective layer comprising tantalum nitride disposed directly
on the copper layer.
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Fillipiak 5,918,147 Jun. 29, 1999
Xu 6,217,721 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Serial No.
08/815,031. An appeal was taken in the parent application on claims very
much like the ones presently before us, the difference being that the present
claims require various layers to be disposed directly on another layer. In a
decision dated January 29, 2004, the Board affirmed the Examiner's
rejection over Fillipiak in view of Xu, the sole rejection now before us
(Appeal No. 2003-2093).
Appealed claims 1-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fillipiak in view of Xu.
With the exception of claims 9 and 29, Appellants do not separately
argue the appealed claims. Accordingly, claims 1-8, 10-28, and 30-40 stand
or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner and the
Board in the prior appeal, we conclude that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013