Appeal No. 2003-1300
Application No. 09/643,372
Liou et al. teach (e.g. Figure 8) to put a liner
34 in a via 40 and under sidewall spacers 38 to
protect the conductive layer during subsequent
processing steps (Column 6 Lines 24 to 29). By
putting this liner in the via, the top diameter of the
neck portion of Blalock et al. will be smaller than
the diameter of the body portion. It would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to form a liner and to
subsequently have a top surface of said neck portion
having a diameter smaller than a diameter of said body
portion as taught by Liou et al. in the process of
Blalock et al. to protect the conductive layer during
subsequent processing steps.
We disagree with the examiner’s analysis. As pointed out
by the appellants (appeal brief, pages 6-7), the relied upon
teachings of Liou have nothing to do with the formation of a
dual-diameter electrical conductor in which the neck portion of
the conductor has a smaller diameter at a top surface than a
diameter of the body portion. Instead, Figure 8 of the
reference merely shows a conductive layer 14 overlying an
insulating layer 12. While it is true that Liou teaches the
deposition or growth of a thin oxide layer 34 “to cover the
exposed conducting layer 14 in the bottom of opening 20 to
protect the conducting layer during subsequent processing steps”
(column 6, lines 25-29), the examiner has not identified
sufficient evidence to establish that such protection would even
be a concern in Blalock’s method.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007