Appeal No. 2004-0652
Application No. 09/396,642
Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
In rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, the examiner focuses
on Nishioka’s disclosure of the Ru adhesion layer embodiment
illustrated in Figures 5 through 8. The determination by the
examiner that this disclosure is anticipatory is well founded
with respect to the subject matter recited in claims 1, 2, 5 and
7, but not with respect to the subject matter recited in claim 4.
Using the language in claim 1 as a guide, and
notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments to the contrary,
Nishioka discloses a method of forming an electrically conductive
structure insulatively spaced from a second structure (see
Nishioka’s Figures 5 through 8), which method comprises the steps
of: providing said second structure (Nishioka’s silicon
semiconductor substrate 30); forming an electrically insulative
layer (Nishioka’s insulative SiO2 layer 32) on said second
structure; forming on said electrically insulative layer and
spaced from said second structure an unoxidized electrically
conductive structure (Nishioka’ conductive Ru adhesion layer 46)
of a material that remains substantially conductive in the
oxidized state (conductive RuO2); and then subjecting said
electrically conductive structure and said electrically
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007