Appeal No. 2001-0274
Application No. 09/136,527
suggests the layer of barrier metal lining the internal surface
of the through-hole and the concave section extending beneath and
undercutting the anti-reflective coating. However, for the
reasons supra, we hold that Myers does, indeed, disclose such a
limitation.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejections of claims 1-6
and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 103.
We turn now to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103
over Myers and Sandhu.
The examiner employs Sandhu for the teaching of a titanium
nitride barrier layer 41 having the limitations recited in claims
3-7, 11-14 and 16. Appellants do not argue these teachings of
Sandhu.
But, as to claim 7, appellants do argue that neither Myers
nor Sandhu teaches or suggests the limitation of the anti-
reflective coating having a thickness of about 250 to about 750
angstroms. The examiner agrees that the references do not teach
this limitation but finds that this is an “obvious design choice”
and “not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are
obtained from these changes” [answer-page 7]. In response to
appellants’ argument, the examiner contends that because Myers
teaches that the thickness of the anti-reflection layer 312
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007