Appeal No. 2000-0160
Application 08/595,150
inherent result of the process specified in claim 24 (Br8) is not
persuasive because of these differences.
Because claim 24 does not expressly require a silicon
dioxide ILD layer, Kalnitsky is not needed. Woo teaches a
silicon nitride etch stop layer which satisfies the limitation of
an ILD via etch stop cap layer "made from a material which is
substantially non-volatilized by silicon dioxide etchants."
Woo discloses that only a portion of the vertical sidewall
needs to be exposed, which meets the limitation of "not entirely
removing said insulating ILD via etch stop cap layer covering
said edge surfaces of said electrically conducting lines." The
unexposed edge surfaces in Woo perform the function "for
protecting said edge surfaces from damaging interaction with
chemicals associated with subsequent process steps" just as the
unexposed edge surfaces are protected in the disclosed invention.
For these reasons, we conclude that claim 24 would have been
obvious over Woo alone and that Appellant has failed to show
error in the Examiner's rejection. The reliance on Woo alone
does not create a new ground of rejection. See In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961) ("the answer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007