Appeal No. 2001-2461
Application No. 08/855,059
The appellants argue that they “are seeking to narrow the
scope of their claims, in a manner which is consistent with
their description of the disadvantages of using CVD copper...”
(Substitute appeal brief filed Dec. 26, 2000, page 8; reply
brief filed Mar. 23, 2001, paper 34, pages 2-5.) The problem
with this argument, however, is that the specification lacks any
hint, much less adequate written description, indicating that
the use of CVD copper as the barrier layer is disadvantageous.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on
this ground.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of Claims 1-10 and 20-23:
Demaray, Blackwell, and Murarka
Demaray, the principal prior art reference, describes a
method in which a wafer is preheated to a temperature on the
order of 100-125°C, sputtering a material such as aluminum at a
rate of 1000 Angstroms for one minute, sputtering 1000 Angstroms
over 15 minutes, and then sputtering 8000 Angstroms over a
period of about 12 minutes at 260-360°C. (Column 7, lines 59-
68.) According to Demaray, the resulting coating “fills the
holes completely and exhibits good planarization above the holes
at both the center and the edge of the wafer.” (Column 7, line
68 to column 8, line 2.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007