Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
from the rejection of claims 7-8 to claims 16-18. (Answer 6, See, CLAIMS 7-8
section above).
Appellants again argue that Havemann’s encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper
conductive liner) is not conductive because it is disclosed as being made of silicon
nitride. (Br. 16-17). According to Appellants, Havemann does not teach or
suggest the upper conductive liner claim feature. Appellants also argue that the
Examiner does not state anything regarding the coextensiveness of the liner under
a via because he fails to indicate that Havemann even teaches a via. (Br. 16).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Earlier in this opinion, we addressed Appellants’ argument regarding the
conductivity of encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner) with regard to
claim 1. Additionally, as we discussed above regarding claim 10, we find that
Havemann discloses a via in the embodiment cited by the Examiner (i.e., Figures
3A-3G). Accordingly, we make the same disposition (i.e., unpersuasive) of
Appellants’ arguments with regard to claims 16-18. (See our discussion of claims
1 and 10 for further explanation).
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 16-18.
CLAIMS 20 AND 25 (FIGURES 4A AND 12A)
Claim 20 is similar to claim 1, except that claim 20 further recites that the
upper level wire has “an array of vias integrally formed in the bottom of said upper
level wire” (Figure 12A, reference numerals 210A to 210I), “at least a portion of
the bottom of each via extending below the top surface of the lower wire level”
(Figure 4A, reference numerals 215 and 225), “a first portion of the array in
contact with the lower core conductor” (Figure 12A, reference numerals 330B,
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007