Appeal No. 1996-2088
Application No. 08/082,432
As noted by the examiner, claim 16 requires “that Al is to be deposited in a single high
temperature (450-550 EC) step” (answer, page 9).
However, as argued by appellants, Maeda and Hu are silent as to how the Al is deposited and
Tracy and Madokoro teach away from a single step deposition of Al while heating the substrate to a
temperature of 450E to 550EC (brief, pages 7-8; reply brief, pages 3-4) because “use of higher
deposition temperatures causes unpredictable voiding or discontinuities in the metal layer” (Tracy, col.
1, lines 32-34) and because Madokoro teaches a lower substrate temperature, i.e., 400EC or less, for
improving step coverage (page 3, top para.). Thus, this rejection is reversed.
To summarize, the § 103 rejection of claims 19-22 and 24 is sustained, the § 103 rejection of
claims 16-18 and 23 is reversed.
III. Obviousness-type double patenting
In obviousness-type double patenting rejections, one must determine whether the claims of the
later filed application would have been obvious in view of the claims of the earlier patent. In re
Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Any analysis employed
parallels the guidelines for analysis of a § 103 obviousness determination. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887,
892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1, 2 and 5-7 of Sugano are directed to a metallization process comprising providing a
connecting hole (i.e., contact hole) in an insulating film on a substrate, forming a three-layer barrier
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007