Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
adhesion layers to improve adherence between the copper and the
barrier layer.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants also argue that Cronin
allows for a stud-down structure whereas Liu focuses on devices
and phenomena underlying the interconnect. We are not convinced
by appellants’ asserted conflicts between Cronin and Liu.
Liu teaches the benefits of utilizing barrier and adhesion
layers when connecting a copper interconnect to a surrounding
structure. Certainly, one of ordinary skill in the art wanting
to improve upon the structure of Cronin would have found it
obvious to have utilized the teachings of Liu to do so for the
reasons discussed by the examiner on page 10 of the answer.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 40 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious of Cronin in view of Liu.
VI. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 42 and 43 as being
obvious over Cronin in view of Ito and Yu
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 10-12 of the answer. The examiner states that although
Cronin does teach additional levels of metallization with
interconnection lines that have integral stud-up protrusions,
Cronin does not expressly teach or suggest an upper interconnect
in contact with the stud-up protrusion of the lower
interconnect. The examiner also states that although Cronin
recognizes that conductive level 12 can be representative of any
type of active device, Cronin does not state that the
interconnect structure is part of a memory apparatus.
The examiner relies upon Ito for teaching a wiring
structure with two overlapping aluminum wiring layers
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007