Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 13
Application No. 08/839,843
and “reduc[ing] the surface area required for metalization.”
Col. 6, ll. 1-2. Because using the titanium barrier material of
Drake to form the layer of Saito’s embodiment would have offered
these advantages, we are persuaded that the prior art as a whole
would have suggested combining the teachings of the references.
Second, the examiner asserts, “Drake et al. teach (col. 4,
line 66 to col. 5, line 10) the use of a titanium barrier metal
layer formed between adjacent aluminum layers for the purpose of
prohibiting interdiffusion and for the additional purpose of
enhancing adhesion.” The appellants argue, “Appellants' amended
Claim 18, clearly states that the diffusion barrier metal is
selected from the group consisting of tantalum containing
nitrogen, chromium, chromium/chromium oxide, titanium, titanium
nitride, titanium-tungsten, hafnium, and any combination thereof,
and this is neither taught nor disclosed by Saito and/or Drake.”
(Appeal Br. at 20.)
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007