Appeal No. 2006-0563
Application 09/941,537
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement
with the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent and thorough deposition of the arguments
raised by appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner’s
reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection of record, and we
add the following for emphasis only.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s factual determination
that Lin, like appellants, discloses a method for reducing light
reflectance from via sidewalls in a photolithographic trench
patterning dual damascene process by forming an ARC layer over the
sidewalls of the via openings. As recognized by the examiner, the
method of Lin not only forms the ARC layer over the sidewalls of the
via, but also fills the via opening with the ARC. However, based on
the prior art discussed by Lin, as depicted in Figures 1a-1i, and
the teachings of Yu and Filipiak, we fully concur with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
“that adequate protection could also be obtained by using one or
more ARC layers of sufficient thickness without necessarily
requiring that the ARC material fill one or more via openings or
holes” (page 5 of answer, last sentence). Also, as set forth by the
examiner, Yu shows the suitability of utilizing a TiN barrier layer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007