Appeal No. 2001-2203
Application No. 09/007,949
upon a top surface of the first metal layer, characteristics which
are not present in layer 36 in Lee. While the description of this
embodiment in Lee proceeds with the deposition of a second
conductive layer 38 formed of metal which is planarized during a
subsequent heat treatment, this metal layer is not involved in the
earlier described silicon atom diffusion process.
We have also reviewed the Wilson reference and find no
disclosure which cures the deficiencies of Lee in disclosing the
required continuous concentration gradient diffusion between first
and second metal layers as particularly set forth in appealed claim
1. We agree with Appellants (Brief, page 6) that, while Wilson
describes the use of two metallization layers with different
compositions, there is no disclosure of any heat treatment at all,
let alone a heat treatment that would produce the continuous
concentration diffusion gradient as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-9
and 14-18 dependent thereon, based on the combination of Lee and
Wilson, is not sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 10-13 and 19-26 in which the Yu and Mathews references are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007