Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
330C) and “a second portion of the array of vias in contact with said lower core
conductor and also in contact with both the inner surface and outer surface of said
upper edge of said lower conductive liner”(Figure 12A, reference numeral 330A).
Claim 25 is similar to claim 20, except that claim 25 further recites the lower
level wire having “one or more integral extensions each extension having a side
and a bottom and extending laterally from the side of said lower level wire”
(Figure 12A, reference numeral 315A to 315C).
The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Farrar
in view Havemann. (Answer 4-6).
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to both claims 20 and 25.
Appellants’ arguments are as follows: (1) neither Farrar nor Havemann teaches the
claim feature, “at least a portion of the bottom of each via extending below a top
surface of said lower wire level.” (Br. 17, 22), (2) Examiner does not indicate any
via in Havemann (Br. 17, 22), (3) the Examiner provides no reason for combining
Farrar with Havemann (Br., 18, 22), (4) the Examiner incorrectly bases the
combination of Havemann with Farrar on the Examiner’s statement that Havemann
teaches forming contacts “without mechanical defects” (Br. 18, 22-23), (5)
Havemann does not disclose which aspects of his method are responsible for
realizing insulating and conducting layers without deleterious mechanical effects
(Br. 19, 23), and (6) Farrar does not disclose forming layers that have deleterious
mechanical effects such that applying Havemann to Farrar would improve Farrar’s
methodology (Br. 19, 23-24). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Appellants’ argument that neither Farrar nor Havemann teaches
the claim feature, “at least a portion of the bottom of each via extending below a
top surface of said lower wire level”, Havemann clearly indicates that the Figures
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007