Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
an interconnect, use in a contact via structure would have been
obvious, given the teaching of general applicability, and to
connections with via structures (column 6, lines 51 et seq.).
Finally, a thickness change to adapt a product to an end use
does not render the claimed subject matter unobvious. It is not
inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation, and appellants have the burden of proving any
criticality. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-
19 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955). We are therefore not persuaded by this argument.
The Rejection of Claims 8-17 and 21-26 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
The examiner has found that Hoshino teaches a sputter
deposited first layer, a second layer of Ta deposited thereon and
a physical vapor deposition of copper over the barrier layer.
Landers is said to teach a Ta/TaN barrier combination is well
known and desired, therefore, it would have been obvious to
modify Hoshino to include the Ta/TaN layer of Landers.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 3-20).
The appellants argue that Hoshino’s layers are the reverse
of their claimed order. (Appeal Brief, page 13, lines 3—20). We
note that the embodiment disclosed at Hoshino, column 3, lines
20-column 4, line 14 results in a structure from top to bottom
of:
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007