Appeal No. 2005-0123
Application No. 10/114,759
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection against appellant’s claims 1
through 10. Claims 1 through 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Simpson, and appellant's
admissions, taken together.
As explained supra, Xu teaches all of the steps of the
claims except that the copper is sputter deposited instead of
electroplated. Further, as explained supra, appellant admits
that Simpson suggests a desire in the art to replace aluminum
with copper and an indication of copper electroplating. However,
the teachings of Xu and Simpson fail to suggest a layer of
titanium (or tantalum) between the titanium nitride (or tantalum
nitride) and the copper when the copper is electroplated.
Appellant states (specification, page 2) that copper has
been used for metal interconnects because of its low resistivity,
and that it typically is electroplated to insure adequate filling
of deep vias or trenches. Appellant continues that:
It is difficult, however, to satisfactorily
electroplate copper (Cu) directly over the metal
nitride barriers. Although metal nitrides can be
sufficiently conductive for circuit operation, where
current flows through the thickness of the barrier
layer, lateral conductivity across such layers is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007