Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
In response, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since
the proposed combination of references “does not teach or
suggest the claimed invention including the recited flow ratio
to produce the
adhesion layer as claimed.” (Brief, page 9). Initially,
Appellant contends that Sandhu, relied on by the Examiner to
teach the claimed ratio of 0.4 or greater of a halogenated gas
product (e.g. TiCl ) to H , is of little value to the skilled4 2
artisan since there is no recognition of the problem of grain
growth of Ti in a contact hole addressed by Appellant.
After reviewing the prior art references in light of
Appellant’s argument, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Contrary to
Appellant’s contention, we find clear suggestion in the cited
references for the Examiner’s combination. It is clear from
the disclosure of Akahori ‘066 (e.g. column 5, lines 1-3) that
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007