Appeal No. 1999-2683
Application 08/754,564
should have been the primary reference since, unlike Tsu, it
deals with Appellant's problem of overetching and teaches an
etch stop layer 38. However, Appellant points out (Br9) that
Kalnitsky alone is not sufficient to meet the claims because
Kalnitsky has a conformal oxide layer 20 directly and
contiguously atop metal line 16 and beneath nitride layer 38.
Claim 18 requires "said top conducting metal surface . . .
having thereon a thin non-conducting via etch-stop layer under
said ILD" and claim 26 requires "depositing a non-conducting
via etch stop layer onto said top conducting surface of said
bottom metal line," which we interpret to require the etch
stop layer to be in direct contact with the top conducting
surface. The Examiner does not address this difference and we
decline to enter a new ground of rejection without knowing the
Examiner's views or whether the Examiner could find prior art
to address this difference. Accordingly, we have only
addressed the stated ground of rejection.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007