Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858
physical vapor depositing a titanium alloy on the first layer in a
second chamber of the processing tool while at least an outer portion of the
first layer is at a temperature of at least about 360ēC, and forming therefrom
a second layer comprising an alloy of titanium and the aluminum from the
first layer in the second chamber during said depositing, the alloy having a
higher melting point than that of the first layer, and wherein essentially all
the physical vapor deposited titanium alloys with the aluminum of the first
layer during the depositing, the outermost portion of the first layer sustaining
a temperature of at least 360ēC between the depositing the first layer and the
depositing the titanium alloy on the first layer;
physical vapor depositing a third layer comprising titanium nitride on
the second layer;
removing the substrate from the processing tool after depositing the
third layer; and
photopatterning the first, second and third layers into a conductive
line over a contacting plug within the opening and in electrical connection
with the diffusion region.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Besser US 5,582,881 Dec. 10, 1996
Marieb US 5,909,635 Jun. 1, 1999
Colgan US 5,925,933 Jul. 20, 1999
Shan US 6,140,228 Oct. 31, 2000
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Besser in view of Shan, Marieb and Colgan.1
1 Appellant’s listing of the “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on
Appeal” omits claims 46-48 from the § 103(a) rejection over Besser in view
of Shan, Marieb and Colgan. However, since Appellant indicates that
claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75 are “the basis for the present appeal” (Br. 3),
and Appellant references claims 41-48 as dependent claims in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013