Appeal No. 2003-1367
Application No. 09/640,237
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The open-ended transitional phrase "comprising" opens claim 1 to
encompass products which include at least the specified limitations of the claim as well as
additional steps, elements, and materials. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686-87, 210 USPQ 795,
802-03 (CCPA 1981) ("As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other
monomer may be present, because the term 'comprises' permits the inclusion of other steps,
elements, or materials").
We here consider the claim term "barrier layer" in the context of the claim as a whole,
including consideration thereof in light of the specification, in which this term is used
independently to refer to (1) a TEOS layer, (2) a BPSG, BSG, or PSG layer, and (3) a
combination of a TEOS layer and a BPSG, BSG, or PSG layer. (Spec., page 6.) The
specification additionally describes the layer 226 as an "insulative barrier layer." (Spec., page
4.) Thus, while the specification states that a TEOS layer prevents dopant migration, the
specification also uses the term "barrier layer" broadly to refer to single layers of doped glass
such as BPSG, BSG, and PSG, which are not taught to have the same dopant migration
prevention properties as a TEOS layer. Accordingly, we find, consistent with its use in the
specification, that the claim term "barrier layer" encompasses doped as well as undoped
insulating layers, which need not prevent dopant migration to the same extent that a TEOS layer
might. The claim term “planarizing said first barrier layer” requires application of a planarizing
process to at least a portion of the first barrier layer. Finally, the term "contact land" is
interpreted to include at least a metal layer that, when formed in conjunction with a via hole and
contact, would provide overlap such that via misalignment does not result in poor contact
between the via contact material and the landing pad material.
We find that, based on the foregoing claim interpretation, all of the claim elements of
claim 1 are met by the combination of Nguyen and Nakamura as set forth by the examiner.
Appellant argues that, “Flattening just the dielectric layer 40 surface above the transistors (12
and 20) of Nguyen et al. according to this alleged motivation is not the same as ‘planarizing said
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007