Appeal No. 1999-2347
Application 08/892,560
have sustained the rejection of claim 21 over Barber, Erie, and
Kim.
In addition, we do not know how Appellants can argue that
"Balda et al. does not teach or suggest the problem of metal
sputtering" (Br22). Balda expressly discloses the problem of
sputter etching and subsequent redeposition of materials on the
walls of the via during the reactive ion etch processing (col. 1,
line 58 to col. 2, line 49; col. 3, line 28 to col. 4, line 10 in
connection with Fig. 1). Balda teaches using a thin etch stop
layer of silicon nitride and a two-step etch process. Balda is
not relied on for the sputtering problem; however, it would make
a good addition to the rejection of claim 21 because it teaches
that the aluminum sputtering problem was well known in the art in
1985, 10 years before the present invention.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no
motivation supporting the combination (Br22).
However, Appellants fail to address or show error in the
Examiner's reasons at FR10-11. Merely alleging lack of
motivation without addressing the Examiner's reasons is not a
persuasive argument. The Examiner's reasoning is sustained
absent a showing of error.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 28
is sustained.
- 26 -
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007