Appeal No. 96-1848
Application 08/161,604
line 2). We agree with the examiner's conclusion that one
of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art would have been
motivated to use an interconnect layer that does not overlap
the contacts in Haskell given the teachings in Deleonibus,
for the purpose of reducing spacing between conductors.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 31, 32, 35,
and 36 over Haskell and Deleonibus.
Appellants argue that "[t]he present invention employs
a unique, specified process which alleviates several
problems encountered in practicing the existing prior art,
such as Haskell" (Br12) and that because Haskell does not
disclose the tungsten deposition process, "[Haskell] thereby
fails to resolve the existing prior art inadequacies
addressed by the teachings of the present invention" (Br12).
The claims recite a structure, not the process for producing
the structure. Appellants have not shown that the broadly
claimed structure inherently resolves the prior art
inadequacies no matter how the structure is manufactured.
Appellants argue that "Deleonibus et al., like Haskell,
notes that the contact material may consist of a metal such
as tungsten . . ., but likewise lacks any teaching,
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007