Appeal No. 2005-1894
Application No. 10/209,004
The appellants argue that “there is no teaching or
suggestion in Hosaka as to how such metal electrode materials
should be etched if they are to be used in place of the
polysilicon film” (brief, page 8). Hosaka’s disclosure that the
electrode material can be platinum (page 5) indicates that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of forming an
electrode made of that metal. The appellant has provided no
evidence or technical reasoning to the contrary.
We therefore conclude that the method claimed in the
appellant’s claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art over the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 4-6 and 10 that
stand or fall therewith.
Claim 7
Claim 7 requires forming a layer of a barrier material in a
barrier hole such that the layer of barrier material contacts a
contact and is substantially coplanar with the surface of an
insulating layer. Such a structure is disclosed by Sandhu
(figure 10A, barrier hole containing barrier layer 75 (col. 5,
lines 64-65) substantially coplanar with insulating layer 40).
The appellant argues that Sandhu does not disclose forming
an electrode having a nodular shape (brief, page 9). This
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007