Appeal No. 2006-0563
Application 09/941,537
Appellants, in referring to the examiner’s statement that the
etch stop materials of Lin’s Figures 1(c) through 1(f) would be
expected to inherently function as an ARC layer, contends that the
“Examiner provides no support for this statement of inherency” (page
15 of brief, last paragraph). However, the examiner clearly
explains that Lin identifies two materials, TiN and SiON, as being
suitable for either etch stop layers or an ARC (see page 14 of
answer). Also, further factual support is provided by the examiner
in pointing out that Yu teaches that TiN can function as both a
barrier layer and an ARC.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results,
which would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established
by the applied prior art.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated
by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed
claims is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007