Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
alleged conflicts that appellants discuss, are relevant. We
therefore are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments in this
regard. Furthermore, we observe that Ito’s multilayer structure
is used for making a “semiconductor device”. See column 1,
lines 6-10 of Ito. Appellants have not directed us to evidence
that the multilayer structure of Ito is not suitable for making
the memory device.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 31, 32, and 33.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 34, 35, and 36 as
being obvious of Cronin in view of Ito and Yu
Appellants discuss this rejection on pages 9-11 of the
brief. Here, appellants allege that there are conflicts between
Cronin, Ito and Yu. We refer to the above-discussed rejection
with regard to our determinations with regard to appellants’
comments on the combination of Ito and Yu. We also provide the
following.
With regard to Cronin, appellants argue that Cronin forms a
stud-down with a single edge through thick insulation and with a
single metal deposition, whereas Yu proposes building up the
contact level by requiring a plurality of thin insulating layers
in a plurality of conductive fill steps for those holes. Brief,
page 10. Appellants state that Cronin touts the benefits of a
damascene process and that this conflicts with Yu because Yu
utilizes a non-damascene process. Brief, pages 10-11.
In view of the above, appellants present the same type of
argument as presented with regard to the combination of Ito and
Yu. Hence, for the very same reasons, discussed, supra, we are
unpersuaded.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007