Appeal No. 96-1848
Application 08/161,604
argued otherwise in their Brief. The "sealing layer on the
oxide" limitation itself does not define how much of the
oxide layer is covered by the sealing layer. Therefore, we
find that Haskell discloses the claimed dielectric layers.
As discussed with respect to claim 31, we conclude that it
would have been obvious to connect an interconnect layer to
the tungsten contact in Haskell in a non-overlapping manner
in view of the teaching of Deleonibus.
One feature brought out by counsel at oral hearing was
that the silicon nitride layer 28b has been removed in the
area between the source and drain contacts in the final
device of Haskell, figure 15b. Claim 10 recites "the
tungsten contact being disposed in a contact hole which is
defined in a series of dielectric layers . . .," which we
interpret to require that the defined dielectric layers
extend around the contact hole; thus, the difference in
structure is claimed. Compare claim 10 to claim 31, supra,
which does not define the layers or any structural
relationship between the layers and the contact. Although
we do not find where this limitation is argued in the Brief
as not being described in the prior art as required by
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007