Appeal No. 1999-2596
Application No. 08/866,773
Next the Examiner determines that the combination of Ajika and Nakamura fails to
teach forming another barrier layer on top of the TiN layer and forming a conductor layer on
top of another barrier layer. To remedy this deficiency the Examiner relies on Yu.
According to the Examiner, Yu teaches forming two barrier layers that are covered by a
metal conductor layer. The Examiner concludes that similar results could be obtained by a
person of ordinary skill in the art. (Answer, pp. 5-6).
The Examiner then realizes that the combination of Ajika, Nakamura and Yu is
deficient because there is no teaching of forming a patterned photoresist which is susceptible
to stripping by a stripper composition comprising hydroxyl/amine compound. To remedy
this deficiency the Examiner relies on the admitted prior art and the Lee reference. (Answer,
p. 6).
Finally the Examiner concludes “[t]herefore, it would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ajika et al.
(5,049,975) in view of Nakamura et al. (5,312,774) further in view of Yu et al. (5,380,678)
barrier process by incorporating a patterned photoresist which is susceptible to stripping by a
stripper composition comprising hydroxyl/amine compound as evidenced by Applicant’s
admitted state of the art and Lee (5,381,807) because of the expectation of achieving similar
success, i.e. a patterned barrier layer.” (Answer, p. 6).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007