Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
conductive line 7 is physically detached from the insulator
(dielectric) 4 in Grill, we determine that the examiner has failed
to establish that the conductive line 7 of Grill “is capable of
being removed by lifting off the conductive layer” as required by
claim 8 on appeal (compare appellants’ Fig. 4B with Fig. 7e of
Grill). Furthermore, as correctly argued by appellants (Brief,
page 7), the semiconductor device of Grill would not function
if there was complete physical detachment and removal of the
conductive line 7. The examiner’s argument that Fig. 7e of
Grill is merely an intermediate product (Answer, page 7) is not
persuasive since Grill does not disclose or suggest that this
intermediate product was physically detached from the underlying
substrate.
Additionally, we note that claim 8 on appeal recites that the
gap is “formed by removal of a portion of a barrier layer” (italics
added). Therefore, this process limitation does further limit the
product as claimed, since it follows that at least some portion of
the barrier layer must remain as part of the semiconductor device,
located between the conductive layer and the insulator (see
appellants’ Fig. 4B). The examiner has not cited any disclosure in
Grill of a barrier layer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007