Appeal No. 2000-0160
Application 08/595,150
It is not clear what is intended by "above a portion of said edge
surface" or how this supports the "whereby" limitation. The edge
surface is a vertical surface, so a "portion of said edge
surface" must be on the vertical surface, and a surface "above"
this is apparently vertically "above" the vertical edge surface.
It is not clear how this defines the invention. We cannot tell
whether Appellant intends to claim that the second portion of the
via bottom end surface is below the level of the top surface.
Obviousness
Claims 19-23, 26, 28, 30, and 32
Claims 19-23, 26, 28, 30, and 32 are argued to stand or fall
together as a group (Br4). Claim 19 is the independent claim.
The Examiner does not particularly identify the
difference(s) between Woo and the subject matter of claim 19.
The Examiner concludes that "one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to select silicon nitride as a material
for an etch stop cap layer 29 of Woo et al, and silicon oxide as
a material for an interlevel dielectric layer 16 of Woo et al for
the purpose of protecting the metal layers from damaging
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007