Appeal No. 2001-2544
Application No. 08/995,108
that ionization sputtering is generally better, especially for
high aspect ratio surfaces (Column 1, line 55). The use of
ionized sputtering in conjunction with the deposition of the
Ta/TaN layers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made, not merely obvious to
try. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gelatos in view of Landers is sustained.
The rejection of claims 8-17 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoshino in view of Landers is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 18-20 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, is sustained.
The rejection of claims 18-20 and 27 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, is reversed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007