Appeal No. 2001-1118
Application 09/262,690
etching of the tantalum/tantalum oxide layer is accomplished by retaining a sufficient overlap of
the tantalum/tantalum oxide layer over the seed layer to ensure good electrical contact between
the tantalum and the plating seed layer. The overlap is described as being about 2-3 microns.
(Col. 6, lines 35-41).
B. Discussion
The applicants in their brief indicate that claims 11-27 stand or fall together. (Brief at 3).
We reverse the rejections of claims 11-27 as follows. A reversal of the rejection on
appeal of claims 11-27 should not be construed as an affirmative indication that the applicants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the positions and rationale as set forth by
the examiner and on which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is based.
The examiner finally rejected: (1) independent claim 11 as being anticipated under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) by Chakravorty, and (2) independent claims 18 and 23 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chakravorty in view of Hoshino. In both the anticipation and the
obviousness rejections, the examiner relies on Chakravorty to teach a first liner layer that is
“substantially removed” as recited in applicants’ independent claims 11, 18 and 23.
The issue, as presented, is whether Chakravorty teaches a first liner layer that is deposited
on the bottom of a via that is “substantially removed.” Thus, if the examiner has failed to
sufficiently establish that Chakravorty teaches a first liner layer that is “substantially removed,”
the rejections of all of the claims 11-26 must be reversed.
Applicants argue that “substantially removed” has a specific meaning as defined in its
specification. The term “substantially removed” is specifically defined in the specification to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007