Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief, and
to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellant argues at pages 8 to 13 of the Brief the following five
features of claim 35 with respect to Besser, Shan, Colgan, or Marieb: (1)
“providing a substrate having an opening extending through an insulating
layer to a diffusion region,” (claim 35) (2) an “aluminum or an aluminum
alloy . . . filling the opening [in the insulating layer],” (claim 35) (3) “at least
an outermost portion of the first layer [i.e., the aluminum or aluminum alloy
layer] being deposited at a first deposition temperature of at least 400°C,”
(claim 35) (4) “the outermost portion of the first layer [i.e., the aluminum or
aluminum alloy] sustaining a temperature of at least 360°C between the
depositing of the first layer and the depositing of the titanium alloy on the
first layer,” (claim 35) and (5) “photopatterning the first, second and third
layers into a conductive line” (claim 35) (Br. 8-13).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
by them for the reasons below.
In view of the Examiner’s thorough explanation of the reasoning
“why, as a whole, the prior art [of the § 103] rejection would [have]
reasonably . . . [led] one ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
invention” (Answer 18-24), which addresses and successfully rebuts each of
“Argument” section of the Brief (Br. 8 and 13), it is apparent that Appellant
recognizes claims 41-48 are included in the rejection on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013