Appeal No. 2002-0730 8
Application No. 09/410,250
Rejection under Section 102(b) over Dubin
In contrast to the electrolytic solution of the first embodiment, claim 15 is directed
to, A>a process for electroplating copper circuitry in trenches and vias in dielectric material
on semiconductor chips.=@ See Brief, page 9.
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b), all of
the elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir.
1991). The examiner relies upon a reference to Dubin to reject the claimed subject
matter and establish a prima facie case of anticipation.
Dubin is directed to a method of filling an opening in a dielectric layer by
electroplating copper therein. See column 1, lines 5-7. A leveling agent which is an
organic additive is employed in the invention. See column 6, lines 15-23. The presence
of the leveling agent results in the electroplating solution plating at the bottom of the
opening and thereafter sequentially to the top of the opening. See column 6, lines 46-49.
The copper is supplied as a copper sulfate solution with chloride anions present to improve
anode dissolution. It is appellants= position that chloride ion, although present in the
solution, is not present in a sufficient amount to form a complex ion with the copper as
required by the claimed subject matter. We agree. Although Dubin clearly discloses that
some chloride ion is present in the copper sulfate solution in the presence of sulfuric acid, it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007