Ex Parte ANDRICACOS et al - Page 3




               Appeal No. 2003-0623                                                                                              
               Application No. 09/348,632                                                                                        


                      Li et al. (Li), “Copper-Based Metallization in ULSI Structures,” MRS Bulletin, pp. 15-18                   
               (August 1994).                                                                                                    
                      Andricacos et al. (Andricacos (I)), Damascene Copper Electroplating for Chip                               
               Interconnections,” IBM J. Rec. Develop., Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.567-573 (September 1998).                             
                      Andricacos (Andricacos (II)), “Copper On-Chip Interconnections: A Breakthrough in                          
               Electrodeposition to Make Better Chips,” Interface, The Electrochemical Society, Inc., Vol. 8, No.                
               1, pp. 32-37 (Spring 1999).                                                                                       
                      Bulkeley (Bulkeley (I)), “The first copper-based ICS debut,” Design News Semiconductors,                   
               pp. S11-S14 (June 7, 1999).                                                                                       
                      Alterio, “IBM Deal Features New Chip: Power4 Will Drive a New German Supercomputer,”                       
               The Journal News, (Unknown Publication Date).                                                                     
                      Bulkeley (Bulkeley (II)), “IBM, Sony Set Game Plan for PlayStation 3 Chips,” ZDNet News                    
               (Unknown Publication Date).                                                                                       
                      The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:                                                             
                      1)      Claim 116 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to              
                              particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards             
                              as the invention;                                                                                  
                      2)      Claim 116 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking written descriptive                   
                              support for the subject matter presently claimed;                                                  
                      3)      Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11, 110, 111, 113 through 115, and 117 through 123 under                 
                              35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chang alone or Chang as interpreted in view of                
                              Poris and Silman;                                                                                  



                                                               3                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007