Appeal No. 2002-0094 Page 8
Application No. 09/346,435
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15 and further requires that the step of forming electronic
structures comprises the step of forming a dielectric layer comprising a material having a low
dielectric constant. The Examiner finds that Hause describes forming a dielectric layer (14) and
acknowledges that this layer is not disclosed as having a low dielectric constant as claimed. The
Examiner, however, finds that Bothra teaches both the required low dielectric constant material
and a motivation for its use in layers with interconnect via structures, i.e., to reduce via resistance
(Answer at p. 4; citing Bothra at col. 1, ll. 39-43). On this basis, the Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
used a low dielectric material in dielectric layer (14) of Hause to reduce via resistance (Answer at
p. 4).
With regard to claim 16, Appellant argues that “no such combination is taught or
suggested by Hause, Bothra or any proper combination of these references.” (Brief at p. 6).
While this broad brush statement does not alone adequately address the Examiner’s specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law, we note that Appellant made much more specific
arguments in addressing a similar limitation in claim 9. We will, therefore, look to the
arguments made in connection to claim 9.
Appellant points out that the use of low dielectric material has a definite purpose in the
process of the claims since it is the low dielectric material which is being protected. On that
basis, Appellant argues that there is no reason to substitute the dielectric of Bothra for the
dielectric of Hause (Brief at pp. 3-4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007