Appeal 2007-2304
Application 10/209,004
Claim 8
Claim 8, in addition to requiring the above-discussed reduced current
leakage, requires planarizing a contact to make it substantially coplanar with a
surface of an insulating material.
Sandhu’s prior art figure 1 shows such a structure (contact 3 substantially
coplanar with the insulating material on each side of it). The Appellant argues that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use the prior art
configuration disclosed by Sandhu when Sandhu teaches away from it (Br. 11).
Sandhu teaches that he seeks to provide increased density, decreased contact
resistance between an electrode and a barrier layer, and reduced degradation of the
barrier layer compared to the prior art device (col. 2, lines 33-38), but he does not
disclose that the prior art device is not functional. Hence, Sandhu and Hosaka
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary
creativity, to use Hosaka’s method when making the prior art device disclosed by
Sandhu to improve the prior art device in the manner taught by Hosaka, i.e., to
remove surface roughness and distortions in the lower electrode (1) and round the
corner portions of the lower electrode’s side surface to prevent degradation of the
quality of the thin insulating film formed on the lower electrode and to obtain good
electrical characteristics (Hosaka 3).
Regardless, the Appellant points out that the Appellant’s contact (64; fig.
6B) is substantially coplanar with the surface of the insulating material (60) even
though the contact has a barrier layer (66) thereon (Br. 5). Because the Appellant’s
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013