Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
therefore reverse this rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 18-20 and 27 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 18-20 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hoshino in view of Landers for claims
8-17, and further in view of Ngan.
As we have reversed the underlying rejection of claims 8-17,
we likewise reverse this rejection for the same reasons.
The Rejection of Claims 18-20 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gelatos in view of Landers for claims 8-17, and
further in view of Ngan.
The examiner has found that Ngan teaches that in the
manufacture of semiconductor devices, ion deposition sputtering
is preferred over traditional sputtering in order to have uniform
step coverage and filling of contact hole vias. Ngan utilized
ion deposition sputtering to deposit an equivalent set of layers,
titanium and titanium nitride; therefore, the examiner concludes,
it would have been obvious to further modify Gelato’s invention
by using ion-deposition sputtering because Ngan teaches ion
deposition sputtering improves deposition in semiconductor
manufacturing. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, line 18 – page 7,
line 6).
The appellants urge that ion deposition sputtering is a
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007