Appeal No. 96-1848
Application 08/161,604
disclosure or suggestion of a viable fabricating technique
to alleviate the problems addressed by the present
invention" (Br13). Again, the claims are directed to the
structure, not the process.
Appellants argue that "while Deleonibus et al.
illustrates a non-overlapping interconnect layer, one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, if the
tungsten contact of Figure 8 were deposited by a blanket
deposition and etch back process, then the formation [of]
the non-overlapping interconnect layer (14) would not work"
(Br13) because a blanket deposition of tungsten would
require an adhesion layer between the tungsten contact and
the side walls of the contact channel and this adhesion
layer would be degraded during etching of the aluminum
interconnect layer. This same problem is said to exist with
Haskell (Br14). The examiner has produced references to Lee
and Huttemann, which appellants acknowledge "disclose the
manufacture of tungsten contacts without adhesion layers"
(RBr4). Therefore, appellants' argument that there is some
undisclosed condition keeping the combination from working
is not persuasive. In addition, attorney argument is not
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007