Appeal No. 2000-0160
Application 08/595,150
Claims 24 and 34
Claims 24 and 34 stand or fall together.
The Examiner relies on the same reasoning for claim 24 as
for claim 19. However, there are several differences between
claim 19 and the product manufactured by the method of claim 24.
Claim 24 recites "depositing an ILD dielectric [sic, the
term "dielectric" is redundant] layer over said insulating ILD
via etch stop cap layer," but does not recite that the ILD layer
is silicon dioxide as in claim 19. The fact that claim 24
recites an ILD via etch stop cap layer "made from a material
which is substantially non-volatilized by silicon dioxide
etchants" does not require a silicon dioxide ILD layer. Claim 24
recites "not entirely removing said insulating ILD via etch stop
cap layer covering said edge surfaces of said electrically
conducting lines," which expressly indicates that a part of the
edge surface may be exposed, whereas we interpreted "covering" in
claim 19 to only require "partially covering." Thus, the product
produced by claim 24 is broader in these two respects than
claim 19. Claim 24 recites the function "for protecting said
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007