Appeal No. 96-0633
Application 07/971,041
We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 11 and
its dependent claims 13 through 15. Although claim 11 (and
independent claim 19 which we will treat separately shortly)
recites no comparable dicing region as does independent claim
1 on appeal, the claimed “a filling layer of a second material
formed only in said aperture and on the insulating layer in
the device forming region” is not taught or suggested in our
view in Ishii alone or in light of Asano or Ishii and Asano
further in view of Esquivel. The other parts of independent
claim 11 on appeal have essentially been duplicated in the
other claims for which we have sustained the rejection.
On the one hand, while figures 1 and 3 of Ishii teach and
show that the tungsten wiring material is within the
respective trenches 7 and 8, it is not shown or described to
be “only” within these regions and, at the same time, figures
1 and 3 do not depict the characterization of the insulating
layer and the filling material in the device or element
forming part 11 in these figures. On the other hand, the
figure 4 version of this reference may be characterized as
containing a filling layer as argued by the examiner in the
device forming region 11 but the disclosed second aperture 8
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007