Appeal No. 2001-1812
Application No. 08/854,008
positioned between the target and support. According to the
examiner, the Asamaki article and the Posadowski article supply
the aforementioned sustained self-sputtering deficiency of the
primary references, and “it would be [sic, would have been]
obvious to modify the primary references by utilizing self-
sputtering conditions of Asamaki . . . and Posadowski . . . since
it allows for good filling of a contact hole” (answer, page 15).
More specifically, the examiner states:
it is agreed that the primary references do not suggest
the conditions required for generating sustained self
sputtering but the secondary references of Asamaki ...
and Posadowski ... teach the conditions needed for
sustained self sputtering with the benefit being that
contact holes can be filled uniformly which the primary
references also recognize as important [answer, page
16].
The examiner’s position is not well taken.
As correctly argued by the appellants and seemingly
appreciated by the examiner, the conventional sputtering
technique of the respective primary references is distinct from
the sustained self-sputtering technique of Asamaki and
Posadowski. Contrary to the examiner’s belief, it would not have
been obvious to combine these techniques in the fashion proposed
by the examiner simply because the primary and secondary
references disclose common desideratum such as the effective
filling of contact holes. As properly indicated in the brief,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007