Appeal No. 1996-3534
Application 08/323,410
conductive metal, wherein “means” are provided “for protecting metallic material located adjacent the
activated seed layer from being electroplated.” We further find that claim 8 further limits claim 7 by
specifying that the “means” is “electrically insulating fillets” formed “along edge crevices of the activated
seed layer for insulating any exposed conductive material adjacent the perimeter regions of the activated
seed layer.” Indeed, when we look to the specification for the structure, material or acts corresponding
to the “means” specified in claim 7, we find the structure formed from materials by acts as specified in
claim 8 and claims dependent on claim 8. In similar manner, claim 15 specifies an integrated circuit
component that includes the presence of “means for protecting conductive material located adjacent a
perimeter of the activated seed layer from shorting due to electroplating of the conductive metallic
interconnect,” which structure is disclosed in the specification to be “at least one fillet of insulating
material” formed from the materials specified in claim 16 and in claim 17 dependent thereon.
Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193, 29 USPQ2d at 1848.
Accordingly, we have compared claims 1 through 6, as we have construed them above, with
Ipri and find that this reference neither describes the claimed process within the meaning of § 102(b)
nor renders the claimed process obvious within the meaning of § 103 because it does not describe or
suggest a process of selective metal deposition which includes the formation of a “seed layer.” Indeed,
there is no teaching in Ipri that “second conductive layer 21” or any other layer is deposited on a “seed
layer” which enables selective metal deposition. In comparing claims 7 and 15 through 17, as we have
construed them above, with Bernhardt, we find that this reference neither describes the claimed
processes and products within the meaning of § 102(b) nor renders the claimed processes and
products obvious within the meaning of § 103 because it does not describe or suggest a process in
which insulating fillets are provided to obtain a product containing same. Indeed, as described by the
examiner (answer, page 6), Bernhardt provides merely “space” at the “perimeter of the activated seed
layer.”
Accordingly, we reverse all of the grounds of rejecting advanced on appeal by the examiner.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (1997), we enter a new ground of rejection of
claims 1 through 17 under § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Bernhardt and
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007