Appeal No. 2001-1662
Application No. 09/048,208
unexpectedly provide improved etching uniformity and reduced
microloading. Appeal brief, Paper No. 20, received November 20,
2000, pages 2-3, paragraph 5. In particular, the inventors have
found that these unexpected results are achieved by completely
removing the metal layer before beginning the barrier layer etch,
and then completely removing the barrier layer before starting
the over etch. id.
Discussion
In deciding patentability issues under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
"[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed?" Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied,
481 U.S. 1052 (1987). According to appellants,
It is a key feature of Appellants' invention to
completely remove all of the metal layer before
beginning the barrier layer etch using an etch that is
selective to the metal layer with respect to the
barrier layer (see Claim 1, lines 25-28 and page 6 of
the Specification, third paragraph) and to completely
remove all of the barrier layer before beginning the
overetch with an etch that is selective to the barrier
layer with respect to the insulating layer (see Claim
1, lines 34-37 and page 7 of the Specification, second
full paragraph).
Appeal brief, page 7, lines 3-12. Thus, appellants maintain
that the invention as claimed distinguishes over Abraham which
does not teach complete removal of the metal layer before
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007