Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
upper conductive liner) and encapsulation material 36 (i.e., lower conductive liner)
shown in Figure 3G, the Examiner states:
The upper conductive liner [sic, encapsulation layer 48] is in contact
[sic, with] the lower core conductor [sic, via metal 39] and also in contact
with the inner surface of [sic, or] outer surface or both surfaces of the upper
edge of the conductive liner (see how the upper liner [sic, encapsulation
layer] 48 overlaps the upper edge and sides of the lower liner [sic,
encapsulation material] 36. (Answer 5).
From the foregoing findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have modified Farrar’s liner-to-liner contact region by using
Havemann’s overlapping interconnect structure to form a contact “without
mechanical defects.” (Answer 6).
Appellants argue that neither Farrar nor Havemann teaches “at least a
portion of the bottom of said upper level wire extending below a top surface of said
lower wire level.” (Br. 8). Appellants contend that Havemann’s encapsulation
layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner) is not conductive because Havemann
indicates that encapsulation layer 48 is made of silicon nitride. (Br. 9). Appellants
contend that, since the encapsulation layer 48 is non-conductive, Havemann does
not satisfy the claimed upper conductive liner feature. (Br. 9). Moreover,
Appellants argue the following: (1) the Examiner does not provide any reason “for
combining Farrar with Havemann, (2) the Examiner bases the combination of
Havemann with Farrar on the assumption that Havemann teaches forming a contact
“without mechanical defects”, whereas Havemann teaches forming a contact
“without deleterious mechanical effects”, (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would
not know from Havemann’s disclosure which aspects are responsible for forming
insulating and conducting layers without deleterious mechanical effects, and (4)
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007