Appeal No. 2005-0479
Application No. 08/801,812
column 2, line 27. However, we do not subscribe to appellant's
position that the reference disclosure is tantamount to a
teaching away from using seed layers, in general, in methods of
forming interconnect structures of the type disclosed by Xu '461.
Rather, we find that the cited portion of Xu '461 is particularly
specific to seed layers of tungsten which sometimes result in the
formation of undesirable crystallographic forms of aluminum. Xu
'461 provides no teaching away of using the presently claimed
seed layer of titanium nitride, which is also the seed layer used
by Xu '721. Furthermore, as for the use of the seed layer
resulting in more complexity, cost and less reliability in the
process, this would seem to apply to appellant's process as well.
Appellant has submitted no argument, let alone evidence, that the
process of the instant invention is not more complex and costly
than processes that eschew seed layers. It is well settled that
it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the
art to eliminate or include a feature of the prior art, along
with its attendant advantages and disadvantages. As explained by
the examiner, the prior art establishes that it was known in the
art to employ seed layers in methods for forming interconnect
structures of the type claimed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007