Appeal No. 2002-0094 Page 9
Application No. 09/346,435
We agree with the Examiner that, in view of Bothra, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to select a low dielectric material for use in the dielectric layer of Hause.
Bothra expresses a specific reason for using such a material in dielectric layers with interconnect
via structures. That is enough to establish the obviousness of the combination. See In re Kemps,
97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(The motivation in the prior art to
combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish
obviousness.); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(It is
enough that some reason, suggestion or motivation exists in the prior art taken as a whole for
making the combination.).
With regard to claims 17-19, which are dependent on claim 15, Appellant again simply
recites each claim limitation and states that “[n]o such combination is taught or suggested by
Hause, Bothra or any proper combination of these references.” (Brief at p. 6). Such a broad
brush statement does not sufficiently counter the specific findings and conclusions of the
Examiner (Answer at pp. 4-5 and 10-11). For instance, such an argument does not sufficiently
call into question the Examiner’s findings that: (1) the forming step of claim 17 is suggested by
Hause because the materials formed are the same (Answer at p. 5); (2) routing of etchant
particles inherently occurs in the process of Hause (Answer at pp. 7-8); and the filled via (via 22
filled with tungsten) of Hause is a conductive via as required by claim 19 (Answer at pp. 4 and
11).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007