Appeal No. 2001-1662
Application No. 09/048,208
beginning the barrier layer etch or complete removal of the
barrier layer before commencing the overetch. id., page 6.
According to the examiner, this argument is unpersuasive since
these features are not claimed. Examiner's answer, Paper No. 21,
mailed January 19, 2001, page 6.1
In determining the patentability of claims, the PTO gives
claim language its "broadest reasonable interpretation"
consistent with the specification and claims. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(citations omitted). The terms of a claim are generally given
their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the specification
or file history that the inventor intended a special definition.
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582,
39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claim 1 recites a method of forming metal lines without
microloading in the fabrication of an integrated circuit and sets
forth a sequence of steps which are clearly intended to occur in
1 The examiner concedes that Abraham does not "expressly
disclose providing a semiconductor structure on or within the
semiconductor substrate and a semiconductor structure include
[sic, including] gate electrodes and source and drain regions" as
required by claim 1. id., page 5. However, appellants do not
dispute the examiner's position that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have modified Abraham to include these structures. See id.
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007