Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
Appellants do not dispute this finding. Utilizing the
interconnect structure of Cronin for a memory structure would
therefore have been obvious in view of Yu, for the reasons
discussed, supra.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of Claims 38, 39, 56, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Cronin in view of Yu.
V. Claims 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Cronin in view of Liu
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 9-10 of the answer. The examiner makes findings with
regard to Cronin, and states that Cronin lacks the limitation
set forth in claim 40 regarding the barrier liner layer, and the
limitation set forth in claim 41 regarding the adhesion liner
layer.
The examiner relies upon Liu for teaching use of a copper
interconnect structure lined with a titanium nitride barrier
layer, and a copper germanium adhesion layer.
The examiner states that it would have obvious to have
modified the teachings of Cronin by using the barrier layers
taught by Liu to prevent the diffusion of copper into the
surrounding insulating layers and/or semiconductor regions.
Answer, page 10.
On pages 4-9 of the brief, appellants argue alleged
conflicts between Cronin and Liu. Appellants emphasize these
conflicts on page 7 of the reply brief. Appellants argue that
Cronin teaches placing a copper interconnect directly on a
supporting insulating layer, whereas Liu teaches certain barrier
layers to prevent the diffusion of copper, and utilizes certain
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007