Appeal No. 2006-0473
Application 10/430,558
not coupled between the trench and the dielectric material but
only coupled between the via and the dielectric material. A
similar observation may be made with respect to the showings in
figure 14 as to the feature at the end of independent claim 11.
Note also the additional showing in figure 23's second embodiment
of Lim that the pattern liner 112 in this figure is at least
partially located between said trenches and the dielectric
material but not between the vias and the dielectric material as
required at the end claim 11.
We therefore do not agree with appellants’ other general
urging that Lim teaches away from the claimed invention because
it teaches the use of a liner that fully covers both the trenches
and the vias. The language chosen for both independent claims 1
and 11 does not exclude the inclusive capability as observed by
the examiner.
As to the respective dependent claims included within the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we agree with examiner’s
observations at pages 2 and 3 of the answer that the
corresponding remarks in the brief merely are restatements of the
arguments with respect to the independent claims with additional
mere statements of the limitations of the dependent claims which
do not comply with 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We turn next to the rejection of additional dependent claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Lim in view Merchant.
We affirm this rejection for the reasons set forth by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007