Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
Erie ignores that Erie does not recognize the problem of metal
sputtering during oxide via etching (Br13-14). However, Erie
expressly recognizes the problem of aluminum sputtering and
teaches the solution that the etch stop layer should be made thin
and etched so as to avoid sputtering of the underlying
metallization. Such teaching would apply no matter what etch
stop material is used.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that there is
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 21, 23, 24, 26, and 28 over
Barber, Erie, and Kim is sustained.
Claim 22 ) Barber, Erie, Kim, Butler, and Keller
Appellants argue that the teachings of Butler and/or Keller
do not discuss metal sputtering and do not overcome the
deficiencies of Barber, Erie, and Kim (Br17).
This argument does not address the separate patentability of
claim 22, but basically argues that Butler and Keller do not
overcome the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 21 and, so,
the rejection of claim 22 should be reversed because it depends
on claim 21. This argument is not persuasive because we have
sustained the rejection of claim 21 over Barber, Erie, and Kim.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no
motivation supporting the combination (Br17-18).
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007