Appeal No. 1998-2671
Application No. 08/480,543
In response, Appellants argue (Brief, pages 6 and 10) that
Mintz does not provide enough refractory metal to form an alloy
in order that, in the language of appealed claim 10, “the alloy
of aluminum and refractory metal substantially fills the
opening....”
After reviewing the Mintz reference in light of the
arguments of record, we do not agree with Appellants’ initial
contention that insufficient refractory metal is provided by
Mintz to form an alloy with the deposited aluminum layer. As
discussed at column 17, lines 38-43 of Mintz, the TaSilicide
refractory layer must be at least 200 angstroms thick, a value
within the 100 to 3000 angstrom thickness range disclosed for
alloy formation at page 8, lines 27-29 of Appellants’
specification.
We do agree with Appellants, however, that, notwithstanding
the issue of whether an alloy is formed between the silicide
refractory layer and the deposited aluminum in Mintz, there is no
basis for concluding from Mintz’s disclosure that any such alloy
fills the opening 416. It is apparent to us from Mintz’s Figure
11 illustration that the refractory metal silicide layer is
formed only on the upper sidewall edges of the via hole 416. In
our view, any alloy that would be formed with deposited aluminum
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007