Ex parte Mikagi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2001

08520003 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KAORU MIKAGI
____________
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
____________
HEARD: March 22, 2001
____________
Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 14, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a semiconductor device
having a metal interconnection. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A semiconductor device having a metal
interconnection, said metal interconnection including:
an insulating film provided on a semiconductor substrate
via a diffusion layer;
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
Our understanding of this reference is based upon a1
translation provided by the Translations Branch of The Patent
and Trademark Office, a copy of which is attached to this
decision.
2
an interlayer contact hole formed in said insulating
film;
a metal silicide layer provided at a bottom of said
interlayer contact hole;
a first conductive film, comprising at least one metal
film, provided on said insulating film and said interlayer
contact hole;
a second conductive film provided in said interlayer
contact hole;
a third conductive film provided on said first conductive
film and said second conductive film; and
a fourth conductive film provided on said third
conductive film.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Chen et al. (Chen) 5,371,410 Dec. 06,
1994
Saito JP 62-241373 Oct. 22,1
1987
Claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Saito.
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
3
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Chen.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed June 16, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
18, filed March 4, 1998) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21, filed
August 17, 1998) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14 and also the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10.
Regarding the anticipation rejection, independent claims
1 and 2 each recite, in pertinent part, four conductive films.
Saito clearly discloses two conductive films, titanium-
tungsten film 6 and aluminum alloy film 3.
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
4
The examiner maintains (Answer, pages 3, 5, and 7) that
Saito's aluminum film can be considered four films of
aluminum. Specifically, the examiner states (Answer, page 5)
that "Saito's aluminum layer may be characterized as one, two,
three, or four aluminum films ... because there are no
structural details which distinguish one film from the others
in appellant's claimed structure." The examiner further
clarifies his position (Answer, page 7) wherein he explains,
"An aluminum layer is nothing more than a mass of aluminum
atoms having a particular shape. Since the atoms are
typically deposited one-by-one on the surface of a structure
(as they would be in Saito's sputtering technique) any sub-
group of atoms could be called a layer."
Appellant argues (Brief, page 5) that the examiner's
characterization of Saito's aluminum film as three or four
distinct films is contrary to Saito's clear disclosure of a
single layer of aluminum. Appellant further asserts (Reply
Brief, page 3) that the examiner's characterization of an
aluminum layer being "nothing more than a mass of aluminum
atoms having a particular shape" is contrary to the definition
of "layer."
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
5
We agree with both of appellant's arguments. The skilled
artisan would not consider the disclosure of a single layer of
aluminum to cover multiple films, and the claims clearly
require four distinct conductive layers. There is absolutely
no basis in either Saito's or appellant's disclosure for the
examiner's interpretation of the claimed layers. Thus, as
Saito fails to disclose each and every element of the claims,
we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9,
and 10, Chen fails to cure the deficiencies of Saito discussed
above. As the combination of Saito and Chen lacks elements of
the claims, the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 9, and 10.
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
4, 7, 8, and 11 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims
5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0239
Application No. 08/520,003
7
SUGHRUE,MION,ZINN,MACPEAK
AND SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202