Ex Parte HILLYER et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-1415                                                                                      
              Application No. 09/141,812                                                                                

                                                   BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The invention is directed to a method of removing residues after etching a via                     
              during fabrication of integrated circuits.  Claim 8 is reproduced below.                                  
                     8.     A method of removing etch residue from a via after etching the via through                  
                     an insulating layer in a partially fabricated integrated circuit assembly, the                     
                     method comprising exposing the etch residue to a plasma formed from ammonia                        
                     and oxygen.                                                                                        
                     The examiner relies on the following references:                                                   
              Chen et al. (Chen)                        5,661,083                   Aug. 26, 1997                       
              Savas et al. (Savas)                      5,811,022                   Sep. 22, 1998                       
                                                                             (filed Nov. 15, 1994)                      
              Molloy et al. (Molloy)                    5,849,639                   Dec. 15, 1998                       
                                                                             (filed Nov. 26, 1997)                      
              Honda                                     5,977,041                   Nov.   2, 1999                      
                                                                             (filed Sep. 23, 1997)                      
                     Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                        
              being unpatentable over Molloy and Savas.                                                                 
                     Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                     
              Molloy, Savas, and Honda.                                                                                 
                     Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                       
              Molloy and Chen.                                                                                          
                     Claims 20-28 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of                      
              prior art in the Final Rejection.  However, those rejections are not contested in this                    
              appeal.                                                                                                   
                                                          -2-                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007