Appeal No. 2003-1260 Page 12
Application No. 09/850,654
the insulating films 13, would still be required whether the metallic material used was tungsten or
aluminum alloy.
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to cite evidence in the prior art of a motivation
for making the asserted modifications to the Kimizuka device (Brief, p. 7). But Hsu indicates
that aluminum systems were thought to be extremely attractive for filling vias (Hsu, col. 1, ll. 44-
48). That portion of Hsu also characterizes tungsten as an alternative to aluminum systems (Id.).
Kimizuka leaves the door open to the use of other conductive materials given that the teaching of
tungsten is merely within a specific embodiment of Kimizuka and Kimizuka more broadly
identifies the via material as a “contact conductive film.” We, therefore, agree with the
Examiner that there is a sufficient suggestion in the prior art for the use of aluminum alloy in the
via of Kimizuka.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 8, 9, and 18 which
has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants.
OTHER ISSUES
Should claim 20 be subjected to further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
whether claim 20 meets the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Claim 20
requires that “all sidewalls of the conductive structure extend from the surface of the metallic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007