Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
Appellants’ Figure 4B depicts an enlarged view of one upper edge (285) of
conductive liner (215) illustrated in Figure 4A.
Independent claims 10, 20, 25, 30 and 31 include various additional
claim features while retaining the essential features of claim 1. Appellants’ figures
that correspond to the embodiment being claimed in the particular independent
claim under consideration will be noted in parentheses following the section
heading in the opinion.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A) REJECTION: FARRAR IN VIEW OF HAVEMANN
CLAIM 1 (FIGURES 4A AND 4B)
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 over Farrar in view of Havemann.
(Answer 4). The Examiner explains in his rejection that Farrar teaches all the
features of claim 1, except “a portion of the bottom of the upper level wire
extending below a top surface of the lower wire level, [and] the upper conductive
liner in contact with the inner or outer surface of the upper edge of the conductive
liner . . . .” (Answer 5). To meet these missing claim features, the Examiner
combines Havemann’s interconnect structure shown in Figure 3G with Farrar.
Havemann discloses an interconnect structure having an “upper level wire”
with an encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner), conductor metal 52
(i.e., upper core conductor), and a “lower level wire” with via metal 39 (i.e., lower
core conductor) and encapsulation material 36 (i.e., lower conductive liner).
(Answer 5). The Examiner determines that a portion of “the bottom of the upper
level wire [sic, i.e., (encapsulation layer 48)] extends below a top surface of the
lower wire level [sic, i.e., (encapsulation material 36)]” as shown in Havemann’s
Figure 3G. (Answer 5). Also from the overlap of encapsulation layer 48 (i.e.,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007