Ex Parte Agarwala et al - Page 15


             Appeal No. 2006-1663                                                                                
             Application No. 09/871,883                                                                          

                   We addressed this argument above in our discussion of claim 1.  This                          
             argument is given the same disposition (i.e., unpersuasive) with regard to 7-8.                     
                   We affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 7 and 8.                                           
             CLAIM 10 (FIGURES 4A AND 4B)                                                                        
                   The Examiner rejects claim 10 over Farrar in view of Havemann. Claim 10                       
             is substantially the same as claim 1, except that claim 10 further recites that the                 
             upper level wire has a “via” integrally formed in the bottom of the upper level                     
             wire, the upper conductive liner covers the side and bottom of the via, at least a                  
             portion of the via extends below a top surface of the lower wire level, and the                     
             upper conductive liner on the bottom of the via is in contact with inner and outer                  
             surface of the “liner-to-liner” contact region. (Figure 4A, reference numeral 210 is                
             the “via”).                                                                                         
                   Appellants argue that neither Farrar nor Havemann teach “at least a portion                   
             of the bottom of a via extending below a top surface of said lower wire level.” (Br.                
             13).  Appellants contend that the Examiner does not identify a “via” in Havemann                    
             and the Examiner provides no reason for combining Farrar with Havemann for the                      
             claimed portion of the “via” extending below a top surface of the lower wire level.                 
             (Br. 13).  Appellants also reiterate their arguments made with respect to claim 1.3                 
                                                                                                                
             3 Appellants again make the following arguments: 1) that combination of Farrar                      
             with Havemann is flawed because the Examiner bases his reason for combining                         
             Havemann with Farrar on Havemann’s teaching to form insulating and conducting                       
             layers “without mechanical defects” while Havemann actually teaches forming                         
             layers “without deleterious mechanical effects”, 2) Havemann does not indicate                      
             which aspects of his methodology are responsible for realizing insulating and                       
             conducting layers without deleterious mechanical effects, and 3) the Examiner                       
             does not indicate where Farrar discloses that the insulating and conducting layers                  
             suffer from deleterious mechanical effects so as to require Havemann’s teachings                    

                                                       15                                                        


Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007