Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
23, 24, 26, 28, and 29 under § 102(e)/103 over Woo are sustained
pro forma.
As to the rejection of claim 22 over Woo, Butler, and Keller
and the rejection of claim 27 over Woo and Stocker, Appellants
argue that Woo has been overcome and the rejections relying on
Woo are moot (Br23). No arguments on the merits of the
rejections including Woo are presented. Because Woo is not
overcome as a reference, and because no arguments on the merits
have been presented, the rejections of claims 22 and 27 are
sustained pro forma.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28 ) Barber, Erie, Kim
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barber and either Erie or Kim and optionally
with Woo. We do not consider the combination with Woo inasmuch
as we have already sustained the rejection over Woo and because
we wish to keep the rejections over Woo separate.
The Examiner finds that Barber, Erie, and Kim all teach a
conductive layer covered by an etch stop layer covered by a
dielectric layer, where a via is created by etching the
dielectric layer down to the etch stop layer and then etching the
etch stop layer down to the conductive layer. The Examiner finds
that Barber teaches a silicon nitride etch stop layer, but does
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007