Appeal No. 2001-1550
Application 09/105,830
barrier of said contact plug.” Therefore, all the claims require
a conductive adhesion-promoting layer.
Appellants argue that Summerfelt fails to teach this
limitation because the adhesion layer 26 becomes a dielectric
during processing, and thereby is not a conductive adhesion-
promoting layer. See page 3 of Appellant’s brief.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument stating that
Summerfelt’s barrier layer 26 is a conductive adhesion-promoting
layer because it allows current to pass through regardless of
whether the layer is a dielectric or a conductor. See page 4 of
Examiner’s answer.
Upon our review of Summerfelt, we find that Summerfelt
teaches in column 4, lines 40 through 44, that “[e]ven though the
adhesion layer 26 becomes a dielectric during processing, it will
not appreciably affect the conductivity of device 10 because it
is only on the order of 5 to 10 Å in thickness.” We find that
Summerfelt teaches that the barrier layer 26 is a dielectric and
thereby cannot be a conductive adhesion-promoting layer as
claimed by Appellants. Therefore, we fail to find that
Summerfelt teaches all the limitations as recited in Appellants’
claims. Thereby, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007