Appeal No. 1997-3635
Application No. 08/498,357
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitation appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellant’s claim 1 recites
. . . forming upon the semiconductor substrate
a barrier metallization layer; and
forming in-situ upon the barrier metallization
layer a silicon layer, the silicon layer being formed
without exposing the barrier metallization layer
to oxygen, the silicon layer having a thickness such
that the contact resistance of the barrier
metallization layer is not substantially increased
[emphasis added].
Appellant’s claim 1, in addition to providing a
semiconductor substrate, recites forming a barrier
metallization layer and forming a silicon layer under specific
conditions. These conditions include in-situ formation of the
layers such that the barrier metallization layer is not
exposed to oxygen. Additionally, the claim requires the
silicon layer to have such a thickness that does not
substantially increase the contact resistance of the barrier
metallization layer. Therefore, we do not find that the claim
precludes some increase in the contact resistance.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007