Appeal No. 2003-1260 Page 9
Application No. 09/850,654
The sole claim within group 5 is claim 14. Claim 14 is dependent on claim 13 and further
requires that the spacer be in contact with the surface metallic material disposed in the via.
With regard to claim 14, Appellants argue that “the Examiner failed to cite a portion of
[Kimizuka] that teaches or suggests a spacer being in contact with a metallic material disposed in
a via.” (Brief, p. 5). Again, the film 13 of Kimizuka will inherently be in contact with the
metallic material 8 within the via in locations where the conductive structure is offset from the
via as inherently occurs in the device.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation with
respect to the subject matter of claim 14 which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
Group 6
Group 6 includes claims 16-20 and we have selected claim 16 as representative of the
issues on appeal with regard to this group. Claim 16 requires, among other things, “a conductive
structure formed over the device layer in contact with, but not completely covering the metallic
material disposed in the via, the conductive structure having at least one sidewall extending from
a surface of the metallic material.” This limitation is similar to that discussed above with respect
to claim 13 and Appellants argued claims 13 and 16 together with respect to this limitation. We
sufficiently address the argument above in our discussion of Group 4.
Claim 16 also requires that “the conductive structure and spacer on each of the at least
one sidewall, enclose the metallic material in the via.” Appellants further argue that “the
Examiner failed to cite a portion of [Kimizuka] that teaches or suggests a conductive structure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007