Appeal No. 2002-0094 Page 5
Application No. 09/346,435
Claim 9
Claim 9 requires, among other things, “forming an electrically conductive interconnect
layer by a plasma etch process, ... said electrically conductive sheath being resistant to the
plasma etch process used to pattern the conductive interconnect layer, and patterning said
electrically conductive interconnect layer by said plasma etch” (emphasis added). According to
the specification, the electrically conductive sheath layer is resistant to the plasma etch process
when the plasma etch is selective to the material of the electrically conductive interconnect layer.
In order to meet the requirements of claim 9, the process must contain a plasma etching step that
is selective to the interconnect material relative to the conductive sheath material.
Appellant argues that the above recited step, especially with the specific function recited,
is not taught or suggested by either reference alone or in combination (Brief at p. 4). While the
Examiner points out that Hause describes patterning an interconnect layer (W layer 28) by an
etch process, there are no findings which indicate that the electrically conductive sheath layer
(TiN layer 26) is resistant to the etch process (Answer at p. 4). On the contrary, as recognized by
the Examiner (Answer at p. 7), the etching of Hause removes both layers (Hause at col. 7, ll. 42-
43).
Because the Examiner’s fact finding falls short, we conclude that the Examiner failed to
the meet the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claim 9. Because claims 12-14 are dependent on claim 9, and include all the
limitations thereof, they fall with claim 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007