Appeal 2007-1295
Application 10/109,713
The issue presented for review is as follows:
Has the Examiner reasonably determined that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to form a dual damascene
structure comprising a substrate having a metal layer provided within the
substrate, a methylsilsequiazane layer located over the substrate and a via
situated within the methylsilsequiazane layer and lined with a tungsten
nitride layer and filled with a copper material within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103? On this record, we answer this question in the affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations (e.g., the
problem solved). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject
matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to
the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also DyStar
Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation need
not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in
any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a
whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,
1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013