Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
line 7).
While we agree that the physical structure of Landers is not
arranged as in the appellants’ claim, it is, as the examiner
correctly points out, the physical structure of Gelatos which is
receiving the known substitution of equivalents. The Gelatos
Ti/TiN layers as arranged would have been exchanged for Ta/TaN,
which results in the claimed invention. We therefore are not
persuaded by this contention.
The appellants have argued claims 13 and 14 separately, as
requiring a layer thickness of TaNx of between 10 angstroms to
about 300 angstroms, and a Ta layer thickness of from about 5
angstroms to about 300 angstroms. The thrust of their argument
is that the claimed dimensions are specifically useful for a
contact via structure and not described in either Gelatos or
Landers. (Appeal Brief, page 10, line 25 – page 12, line 6).
While this argument has a certain logic to it, it is not
consistent with the claimed subject matter. As the examiner has
pointed out, claim 13 recites that the claimed layers can be as
thick as “about 300” angstroms. Gelato’s titanium layer is 100-
300 angstroms, while the titanium nitride layer is from 300-500
angstroms. As noted above, these ranges overlap and therefore
would have been obvious. Further, although Gelatos exemplifies
December 18, 1996, column 5, lines 28-30.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007