Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
Cu/Ta, TaN, W, WN, ZrN, TiC, WC or TiN/Ti or Al or Pt/SiO2/Si.
Selecting the claimed compound of tantalum for the barrier layer
results in:
Cu/Ta/Ti.2
Here the rejection fails. The examiner states that Landers
discloses that Ta/TaN is a known combination for a barrier layer.
We accept that general statement, but we question the motivation
for replacing the disclosed barrier layer of Hoshino with that of
Landers.
Why should one exchange the Ta/Ti barrier layer for Ta/TaN,
other than for the reason it is taught by the instant
specification? The stated motivation provided by the examiner,
to prevent diffusion and electromigration, is already
accomplished by the Hoshino layer. (Hoshino, abstract, lines 6-
9).
These circumstances lead us to conclude that the examiner,
in making his Section 103 rejection, has fallen victim to the
insidious effect of hindsight syndrome wherein that which only
the inventor has taught is used against its teacher. W. L. Gore
& Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). We
2 Using the reasoning from the previous rejection, it is equally logical to
select Cu/TiN/Ti and replace that with TaN/Ta as a known functional
equivalent. This is, of course, the inverse of the claimed layer arrangement.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007