Appeal No. 1998-1850
Application No. 08/596,613
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
For the reasons previously stated, we conclude that instant claim 15 fails to
reasonably apprise those of skill in the art of its scope, and thus fails to pass muster under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 16-18, 22-24, 40, and 41, incorporating the
limitations of claim 15, also fail to meet the requirements of the statute.
Considering instant claim 18 in isolation, we also point out a discrepancy between
the claim and the disclosed invention. Claim 18 recites that the bottom of the contact
opening has a “layer of native oxide thereon,” and the etch which removes metal ions
implanted in the insulating layer “etches into the layer of native oxide.” However, the
specification at page 15, lines 9-13 discloses that “native oxide insulating layer 39” (Fig. 6)
may form on the surface of contact opening 36, but it is “volatized and removed” as a
consequence of “the metal ion implantation and annealing step.” The “layer of native
oxide,” if present, is thus removed prior to the etch which removes the metal ions that are
implanted into the surface of the insulating layer, contrary to the language of claim 18.
Compare instant Figures 6 and 8, and also see the description of the “plasma etchback” to
remove implanted metal ions at page 16, lines 14-26 of the specification.
CONCLUSION
-15-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007