Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362
capacitor that is contacted from below. Reply brief, page 5.
Leung describes this configuration as an “inverted” form of a
capacitor. See col. 8, lines 37-42 of Leung.
The examiner’s explanation in his rejection does not
rectify these disparate structures. The examiner’s motivation
for combining is “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the capacitor and contact structure of Ryan by forming the
connection between the capacitor top electrode and contact
portion simultaneously as taught by Leung to simplify the
interconnection process and form a capacitor structure above the
semiconductor without disrupting routing of the underlying
interconnect metallization.” Answer, page 5. Yet, the examiner
does not explain how this simplification would occur in Ryan
when Ryan’s disclosure is a capacitor that is contacted from
above, as shown in Figure 3. In the paragraph bridging pages 8
and 9 of the answer, the examiner alleges that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill would apply this teaching to reduce the number of
connections and vias to the interconnect and the capacitor of
Ryan thus reducing processing steps and manufacturing costs”.
Yet, the examiner does not support this conclusory statement by
facts or technical explanation. For example, the examiner has
not explained how to alter the process in Ryan, and when
altering the process of Ryan, what steps would be different
which would in fact reduce the process steps and manufacturing
cost. In fact, it appears to us that the modification of Ryan
as suggested by the examiner goes against the contact from above
configuration and would in fact complicate the process rather
than simplify it. Therefore, we determine that the examiner’s
conclusion/allegation is unsubstantiated.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007