Appeal No. 2001-1093
Application No. 09/252,186
using a conductive liner (adhesion promoter layer) to
envelope interconnection system having an air gap
therein. Ahn further teaches an artisan that the
adhesion promoter layer can be formed of metals other
than refractory metals (column 5, lines 64-65). Ho
teaches the advantages of using a metal silicide liner
as an adhesion promoter layer on interconnect
structures (column 4, lines 22-29), wherein an adhesion
promoter metal silicide liner can replace an adhesion
promoter liner comprising aluminum and refractory metal
(column 7, lines 49-54).
The examiner’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding,
the evidentiary record before us does not support any of the so-
called motivational statements (e.g., enhancing the conductivity
of the device, improving the reliability of the device and
preventing the formation of open circuits and short circuits
during an etching process) for modifying the teachings of Hause
with those of Ahn and Ho. As stated in In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338,
1343-44, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The examiner’s
conclusory statements . . . do not adequately address the issue
of motivation to combine. This factual question of motivation is
material to patentability, and could not be resolved on
subjective belief and unknown authority. It is improper, in
determining whether a person of ordinary skill would have been
led to this combination of references, simply to ‘[use] that
which the inventor taught against its teacher.’”). Although Ahn
discloses the use of copper alloys formed from a refractory metal
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007