Appeal No. 2005-0998
Application No. 10/054,605
We will approach the two principal issues in this case much
the same as appellants have done in their reply brief.
First, with regard to the combination of Hong with either
Dubin, Maydan, or Lee (rejections 1, 2, and 3 above), we note
that appellants stipulate on page 3 of their brief that, for each
rejection, all of the involved claims stand or fall together.
Thus, we need only consider claim 18.
With regard to claim 18, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been prima facie obvious within the context of 35
U.S.C. § 103 to form an ultra-thin barrier layer, i.e.,
conductive film, over the surface of the conductor element, i.e.,
copper material, in any of the primary references to obtain the
benefit of deep submicron low-resistance copper interconnects as
suggested by Hong (col. 1, ll. 32-34).
Moreover, since instant claim 18 does not specify any
particular conductive film material, it would have been
especially obvious within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to
substitute thin diffusion barriers composed of metal oxides or
metal carbides, as taught by Hong, for those disclosed in Dubin,
Maydan, or Lee since Hong suggests that such barrier layer
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007