Appeal No. 2006-0473
Application 10/430,558
examiner at pages 4 and 5 of the answer as briefly embellished
upon by the examiner at page 7 of the answer. There the examiner
essentially repeats the essence of the teaching value of Merchant
to the subject matter of Lim.
At least with respect to dependent claim 3, appellants’
remarks at pages 26 and 27 of the brief do not challenge what the
examiner relies upon for combinability with Lim. Instead
appellants argue the same argument as to Merchant as to Lim
previously argued, only generally alleging that both references
teach away because both teach the liners cover both trenches and
vias. In this respect then our same response as indicated
earlier with respect Lim alone is pertinent here as well.
Additionally, the argument appears not to be pertinent to
the actually features recited in representative dependent claim
3, for example, which merely recites that the previously recited
low-k material is comprising OSG. The examiner has previously
relied upon column 4, lines 50 through 61 and column 6, lines 53
through 58 in Lim for respective dielectric materials having a
low-k dielectric. The same is true for the corresponding
teachings relied upon by the examiner at column 2, lines 55
through 60 and the specific teaching of utilizing OSG at column
3, lines 39 through 45 of Merchant as a low-k dielectric. This
teaching at column 3 indicates that low-k dielectrics can
additionally include organosilicate glass (OSG) which apparently
has trade names including Black Diamond which is specifically
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007