Appeal No. 2006-1663
Application No. 09/871,883
3A-3G embodiment, cited by the Examiner in his rejection, teach an encapsulation
process for vias. (Havemann, col. 4, lines 55-56). Additionally, Farrar teaches an
array of vias (Farrar, Figure 3G, reference numeral 328; i.e., there is a “via” on the
right-hand side of the figure and a “via” on the left-hand side of the figure).
Moreover, once Havemann’s overlapping encapsulation layer structure (i.e.,
encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner) and encapsulation material 36
(i.e., lower conductive liner)) is incorporated into Farrar’s interconnect via
structure, then the encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner) will extend
“below a top surface of said lower wire level” (i.e., Havemann, Figure 3G,
encapsulation layer 48 (i.e., upper conductive liner) extends below a top surface of
the encapsulation material 36 (i.e., lower conductive liner)). The combination of
Havemann’s overlapping encapsulation material structure with Farrar’s barrier
layer-to-barrier layer (i.e., liner-to-liner) structure would result in each via in the
array having a bottom that extends below a top surface of the lower wire level.
Arguments (2) through (6) delineated above are not persuasive. Earlier in
this opinion, we addressed Appellants’ arguments (2) through (6) in our discussion
of claims 1 and 10. These arguments regarding claims 20 and 25 are given the
same disposition (i.e., unpersuasive) as those arguments applied to claims 1 and
10.
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 20 and 25, and non-argued claims
22 and 27, which depend therefrom.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007