Ex Parte Yu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2007

10637406 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte WEN YU and PAUL RAYMOND BESSER
________________

Appeal 2007-0758
Application 10/637,406
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided: February 28, 2007
________________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-26. Claims 1
and 10 are illustrative:
1. A method for manufacturing a semiconductor component, comprising:
providing a first layer of dielectric material having a via filled with a
first electrically conductive material, the via having a first aspect ratio;
forming a second layer of dielectric material over the first layer of
dielectric material;
Appeal 2007-0758
Application 10/637,406

2
forming a first extension via in the second layer of dielectric material,
the first extension via having a second aspect ratio, wherein a trench is
absent from the second layer of dielectric material; and
filling the first extension via with a second electrically conductive
material.
10. The method of claim 1, further including:
forming a third layer of dielectric material;
forming a second extension via in the third layer of dielectric material,
the second extension via having a third aspect ratio; and
filling the second extension via with a third electrically conductive
material.
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Sekiguchi US 6,333,255 B1 Dec. 25, 2001
Tsuji US 6,376,365 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
Kudo US 6,417,116 B2 Jul. 9, 2002
Appealed claims 1, 2, 4, 9-20, and 22-26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tsuji. Claim 3 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuji. Also, claims 5-8
and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tsuji in view of Kudo and Sekiguchi.
Appellants submit that “[c]laims 10-16 and 18-24 are argued as a
single group” (principal Br. 4). Also, Appellants only present substantive
arguments against the rejection of claims 10-16 and 18-24 and request
“allowance of at least claims 10-16 and 18-24” (principal Br. 13, last
sentence). Consequently, since Appellants have not argued the § 102
Appeal 2007-0758
Application 10/637,406

3
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 17, 25, and 26, and the § 103 rejections of
claims 3, 5-8, and 21, the Examiner’s rejections of these claims are
summarily affirmed. Also, we will limit our consideration to the Examiner’s
§ 102 rejection of claim 10.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well
founded and free of reversible error. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
The principal argument advanced by Appellants with respect to the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 10-16, 18-20, and 22-24 over Tsuji is
that Tsuji does not describe the formation of a second plug in contact with a
first plug, and a third plug over and in contact with a second plug.
Appellants emphasize that Tsuji teaches the formation of a first wire or
wiring over and in contact with a first plug, and a second plug over and in
contact with the first wiring. Appellants contend that “Tsuji does not teach
the formation of three plugs stacked on top of each other to form a high
aspect ratio plug” (principal Br. 11, last para.). Appellants further explain
that reference character 16 of Tsuji is not a plug, as set forth by the
Examiner, but a wiring, and that one of ordinary skill in the art understands
the difference between a wiring, which is an electrically conductive structure
for carrying current in the lateral direction, and a plug, which is an
electrically conductive structure for carrying current in a vertical direction
(Reply Br. 3, last para.). Appellants maintain that “[t]o state that these terms
Appeal 2007-0758
Application 10/637,406

4
are one and the same and can be used interchangeably is clearly improper
[and that] [a] plug and a wiring are two separate and distinct elements of a
semiconductor component” (Reply Br. 6, second para.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. First, Appellants have not
offered any objective evidence to lend factual support to their argument
regarding any art-recognized definitions of the terms “plug” and “wiring.”
More significantly, however, is the fact that Appellants’ argument is not
germane to the claimed subject matter on appeal. Nowhere do the appealed
claims recite the formation of a plug. Claims 1 and 10 recite “a first
electrically conductive material,” “a second electrically conductive
material,” and “a third electrically conductive material.” Tsuji, on the other
hand, clearly describes first, second, and third conductive materials
superimposed on each other. We note that Tsuji’s first wirings and second
wirings are described as first conductive bodies and second conductive
bodies, respectively (see col. 7, ll. 24-25 and col. 8, ll. 39-40). Hence, it
cannot be gainsaid that Tsuji describes the presently claimed first, second,
and third electrically conductive materials within the meaning of § 102.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
Appeal 2007-0758
Application 10/637,406

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).

AFFIRMED

clj

Farjami & Farjami LLP
26522 La Alameda Ave., Ste. 360
Mission Viejo, CA 92691