Ex Parte Chopra - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0123                                                        
          Application No. 10/114,759                                                  

          1.   A method of fabricating an integrated circuit, comprising:             
               loading a semiconductor workpiece into a chamber;                      
               providing a metallic source and a supply of nitrogen source            
          gas to the chamber;                                                         
               depositing a conductive barrier layer on the workpiece                 
          within the chamber, wherein the layer is formed from the metallic           
          source and the nitrogen source gas;                                         
               reducing continuously the supply of nitrogen source gas                
          while depositing the barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer               
          comprises a substantially pure metal sub-layer; and                         
               electroplating a metal layer directly on a top surface of              
          the substantially pure metal sub-layer without an intervening               
          deposition on the semiconductor workpiece.                                  
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Simpson et al. (Simpson)      6,174,425           Jan. 16, 2001             
                                                  (filed May  14, 1997)               
          Xu et al. (Xu)                6,217,721           Apr. 17, 2001             
                                                  (filed Apr. 05, 1996)               
               Prior art relied upon by the Board is:                                 
          Admissions as to the prior art at page 2 of the specification               
          (appellant's admissions)                                                    
               Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as            
          being unpatentable over Xu in view of Simpson.                              
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (mailed                     
          April 22, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                    
          support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (filed                   

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007