Appeal No. 2001-1093
Application No. 09/252,186
(e.g., titanium) in adhesion promoter layers 44 and 52
(Figure 10; column 4, line 53 through column 5, line 24), and Ho
uses a refractory metal (e.g., tungsten) in a metal silicide seed
layer 200 and 208 for a subsequent deposit of tungsten in an
opening 204 of a semiconductor device (Figure 2e; column 4,
lines 2 through 30 and column 7, lines 3 through 54), the
examiner has not successfully demonstrated via substantial
evidence in the record how and why the skilled artisan would have
found it obvious to rely on the disparate copper alloy teachings
of Ahn and the metal silicide teachings of Ho to provide the
“metal features and vias” in Hause with a metal silicide liner.
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 10, 21
through 24 and 28 through 31 is reversed because we agree with
the appellant’s argument (reply brief, page 5) that “[t]he
Examiner’s interpretation of the seedlayer of Ho ‘214 and
photoresist adhesion promoter of Ahn as a conductivity enhancing
feature for the system of Hause et al., when viewed in light of
Appellant’s disclosure, is clearly an improper retrospective
assessment of the applied prior art in light of Appellant’s
disclosure.”
The obviousness rejection of claims 25 through 27 is
reversed because the metal silicide teachings of Ho ‘841 fail to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007