Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
48, Havemann’s disclosure, as a whole, teaches that it is desired to form electrical
contact between the conductor metal 52 (i.e., upper core conductor) and metal via
39 (i.e., lower core conductor) such that it would have been obvious to eliminate
the insulative silicon nitride in favor of a conductive encapsulation material for
encapsulation layer 48 to thereby obtain such a desired feature.
Additionally, using a conductive material as the encapsulation material 48
(i.e., upper conductive liner) would save an additional step (i.e., the additional
selective removal step for the insulative silicon nitride taught by Havemann).
(Havemann, col. 4, ll. 12-16, 65-66, col. 5, ll. 9-12). One less step in the method
would translate into monetary and time savings for the user, which further evinces
the obviousness of using a conductive material for encapsulation layer 48.
From the foregoing explanation, it is our determination that Havemann
teaches, or at least would have suggested, the claimed feature: “said upper
conductive liner on the side and the bottom of said upper level wire, at least a
portion of the bottom of said upper level wire extending below a top surface of said
lower wire level.”2
Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the Examiner provides no reason for
combining “Farrar with Havemann,” the Examiner provides motivation directly
from Havemann’s disclosure. Specifically, Havemann discloses that connecting
the layers in the manner described “realizes desirable insulating and conducting
layers without deleterious mechanical effects.” (Havemann, abstract).
2 Havemann shows encapsulation layer (i.e., upper conductive liner) 48 extending
below the top surface of the edge of the encapsulation material (i.e., lower
conductive liner) 36. (Havemann, Figure 3G, reference numerals 36 and 48).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007