Appeal No. 2001-1118
Application 09/262,690
mean that any liner material remaining on the bottom of the via is insufficient to significantly
effect the electrical and capacitive potential of the final structure (ff2 8). The examiner
apparently does not disagree that the term “substantially removed” should be interpreted with the
specific meaning set forth in the applicants’ specification, rather the examiner states that “the
appellant has failed to discuss or present evidence as to what electrical or capacitive potential
effect would an overlap of 2-3 microns on a seed layer close to the bottom of the via would have
in terms of functionality.” (Answer at 9; Supplemental Answer3 at 9).
The applicants have specifically defined “substantially removed.” When an applicant
states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are examined with that
meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant’s invention and its relation
to the prior art. In re Zletz, 898 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Here,
the applicants have selected to specifically set forth a definition for “substantially removed” to
mean that any material remaining on the bottom of the via is insufficient to significantly effect
the electrical and capacitive potential of the final structure4.
Although Chakravorty teaches removing a portion of the first liner layer from the bottom
of the via, Chakravorty describes leaving enough of the first layer to “ensure good electrical
contact” between the first layer and the underlying seed layer. Contrary to the examiner’s
2 Finding of fact.
3 The Examiner’s Supplemental Answer repeats those arguments made in the Examiner’s
Answer.
4 We understand “final structure” to refer to the final structure of the via.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007