Appeal No. 2004-0721
Application No. 09/401,409
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete discussion of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner regarding the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain this rejection for the reasons which follow.
It is undisputed that Xu’s first embodiment, which is shown
in Figures 2a-2d, includes an adhesion layer 7 between the low
dielectric constant layer 6 and cap silicon oxide layer 8 (e.g.,
see lines 16-58 in column 6). However, the examiner and the
appellants disagree as to whether appealed independent claim 1
excludes the adhesion layer in Xu’s first embodiment via the here
claimed step of “depositing an oxide on said low-k dielectric
material.” According to the examiner, this step does not require
that the oxide 8 be deposited directly on the low-k dielectric
material and therefore encompasses the adhesion layer between
patentee’s oxide and low-k dielectric material.2
1(...continued)
merits of the rejection advanced by the examiner, we will focus
on representative independent claim 1 with which all other claims
will stand or fall. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
2 The last paragraph on page 5 of the answer indicates that
the examiner may consider Figure 1a of Xu as supporting his above
discussed anticipation finding. This is incorrect. As properly
(continued...)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007