Appeal No. 2005-0998
Application No. 10/054,605
materials prevent diffusion more effectively and can be used to
form an ultra-thin diffusion barrier (col. 1, ll. 66-col. 2, l.
4; col. 5, ll. 19-23).
Second, with regard to the rejections involving Zhao
(rejections 4 and 5 above), we again note appellants’ stipulation
that, for each rejection, all of the involved claims stand or
fall together. Thus, we need only consider claim 5 (with regard
to rejection 4) and claim 8 (with regard to rejection 5).
With regard to both claim 5 and claim 8, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious within the
context of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to anneal the metal-phosphide barrier
layer of Dubin or the metal-boron barrier layer of Lee, each
having the thickness suggested by Hong, to obtain improved
electrical properties as suggested by Zhao (col 3, ll. 30-5).
Additionally, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to
modify the specific annealing conditions disclosed by Zhao (col.
8, ll. 63-65) in order to optimize the resulting characteristics
of any particular barrier layer/conductor construct. In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007