Ex Parte Yu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

11444629 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHEN-HUA YU and MING-SHIH YEH
____________

Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER , Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

App
App

claim

havin
havin
the s
2A r

App
porti
unde
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Appellan
s 1-23. W
We affir
Appellan
g a first p
g no unde
econd por
eproduced
Appellan
ellants’ Fig
on directly
rlying and
05105
/444,629
ST
ts appeal
e have ju
m-in-part.
ts’ claime
ortion dire
rlying and
tion is less
below).
ts’ Figure
ure 2A sh
over and
adjoining
ATEMEN
under 35 U
risdiction

THE I
d inventio
ctly over
adjoining
than a firs
2A is rep
ows the se
adjoining
vias.
2
T OF TH
.S.C. § 13
under 35 U
NVENTIO
n is direct
and adjoin
vias wher
t width R
roduced be
cond cond
via 22 and
E CASE
4(a) from
.S.C. § 6(
N
ed to a con
ing via 22
ein the se
of the firs
low:
uctive lin
a second
a final rej
b).
ductive li
and a seco
cond width
t portion (s
e 24 havin
portion ha
ection of
ne 24
nd portion
Wm of
ee Figure
g a first
ving no

Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

3

Claims 1, 4, and 17, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An interconnection structure for integrated circuits comprising:

a first dielectric layer;

a first conductive line in the first dielectric layer;

a second dielectric layer over the first dielectric layer and the first
conductive line;

a dual damascene structure in the second dielectric layer, wherein the
dual damascene structure comprises;

a second conductive line; and

a via between and adjoining the first and the second conductive lines,
wherein the second conductive line comprises a first portion directly over
and adjoining the via, and a second portion having no underlying and
adjoining vias; and

wherein a second width of the second portion is less than a first width
of the first portion.

4. The interconnection structure of claim 1, wherein the first width is
substantially equal to a width of the via.

17. An interconnection structure for integrated circuits comprising:

a metal line in a metallization layer, wherein the metal line has a
portion with no underlying and adjoining vias, and wherein the portion has a
width;

a first via underlying and physically connected to the metal line,
wherein the first via has a first dimension in a width direction of the metal
line; and
Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

4
a second via overlying and physically connected to the metal line,
wherein the second via has a second dimension in the width direction of the
metal line, and wherein the width of the metal line is less than the first
dimension and the second dimension.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Matsunaga (US Patent No. 6,559,548
B1, May 6, 2003) in view of Brody (US Patent No. 6,348,233 B2, February
19, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 17-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Mitani (US Patent No. 7,075,182, July 11,
2006) and Brody.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Matsunaga and Brody teaches the limitations of:
1. “wherein a second width of the second portion is less than a first
width of the first portion” as recited in claim 1;
2. “wherein the first width is substantially equal to a width of the via”
as recited in claim 4; and
whether the combination of Mitani and Brody teaches the limitation of:
3. “wherein the width of the metal line is less than the first
dimension and the second dimension” as recited in claim 17.

Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006), stated that “‘ [r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained
by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 21, and 22
Appellants first argue that Brody is concerned with a known problem
of forming MLC substrates and provides a specific solution for such
substrates (App. Br. 9). Appellants note that nothing in Matsunaga discloses
or suggests the existence of such a problem (App. Br. 9). Thus, Appellants
conclude that there is no motivation to combine the references of Brody and
Matsunaga (App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner that both Brody and Matsunaga are concerned with analogous
devices including vias and conductive lines (Ans. 9). The Examiner found,
and we agree, that Brody teaches a conductive line 24 (Fig.2) having a first
portion and a second portion, wherein the width Wl of the second portion is
less than a first width of the first portion (the diameter dc) (Fig. 1) (see Figs.
1-2, col. 1:66-col. 2:4). The Examiner’s articulated reasoning (Ans. 10) that
Brody’s conductive line with associated width dimensions would result in
Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

6
reliability and quality between conductive via and conductive line in line-to-
via connections (see Brody, Figs. 1-2) provides a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
We further note that Matsunaga explicitly states that while the line-to-
via connections described pertain to MLC substrates, the line-to-via
connections may be useful in other substrate connections and other printing
processes (col. 4, l. 63-col. 5, l. 68). Accordingly, we disagree with
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 9) that Matsunaga’s teaching is only with
respect to MLC substrates.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and for the same
reasons the rejection of claim 9 which was not argued separately. We also
affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-16, 21, and 22, which
were not separately argued and depend from claims 1 and 9.
Claim 4
Appellants argue that Claim 4 recites the claim element “wherein the
first width is substantially equal to a width of the via,” and Brody’s Figure 4
clearly indicates that dc is greater than the diameter dv (App. Br. 10).
We agree with Appellants’ argument. Brody expressly teaches that
the diameter dc is greater than the diameter dv (col. 1, l. 66-col. 5, l. 5).
If the diameter is greater, then it cannot also be “substantially equal,” and
thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Claims 17-20 and 23
Appellants argue that Brody only teaches the width of a metal line
being less than the width of its underlying via (App. Br. 12). According to
Appellants, nothing in Brody teaches the width of a metal line being less
App
App

than
via i
conc
over
(App
relat
and t

Exam
line
unde
via 2
first
seco
wher
meta

and a
eal 2010-0
lication 11
the width
s to be form
lusion that
lying the a
. Br. 12).
ionship of
he width W
We are n
iner that
42 in a me
rlying and
8 underlyi
via has a f
nd via 62 o
ein the sec
l line 42 (
Mitani’s
Mitani’s
n overlyin
05105
/444,629
of its over
ed overly
an additio
dditional v
Appellan
the width
l of meta
ot persuad
Mitani dis
tallization
adjoining
ng and ph
irst dimen
verlying a
ond via h
cover Figu
cover Fig
cover Fig
g second
lying via (
ing metal
nal width
ia will be
ts assert th
of the add
l line 24 (
ed by App
closes an i
layer, whe
vias, and
ysically co
sion in a w
nd physic
as a secon
re) (Ans.
ure is repr
ure shows
via 62.
7
App. Br. 1
line 24, th
of an addi
less than t
at no conc
itional via
App. Br. 1
ellants’ a
nterconne
rein the m
wherein th
nnected to
idth direc
ally conne
d dimensio
11).
oduced be
metal line
2). There
en one wo
tional met
he width o
lusion can
that is ove
2).
rgument.
ction struc
etal line h
e portion
the metal
tion of the
cted to the
n in the w
low:
42, an un
fore, if an
uld only d
al line (if
f the addi
be drawn
rlying me
We agree
ture havin
as a portio
has a widt
line, whe
metal line
metal lin
idth direct
derlying fi
additional
raw the
any)
tional via
as to the
tal line 24
with the
g a metal
n with no
h; a first
rein the
; and a
e 42,
ion of the

rst via 28

Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

8
While the drawings are not drawn to scale, there is certainly the
suggestion that the width of the metal line 42 is less than the width diameters
of underlying via 28 and overlying via 62.
As we stated supra, the Examiner found, and we agree, that Brody
teaches a conductive line 24 (Fig.2) having a first portion and second
portion, wherein the width Wl of the second portion is less than a first width
of the first portion (the diameter dc) (Fig. 1) and wherein a ratio of the width
of the conductive line 24 to a width dc of the via 27 (see Figs. 1-2, col. 1:66-
col. 2:4). Thus, Brody teaches the width of the metal line being less than an
underlying via. It would have been common sense to use the same type of
via for overlying connections to connect the same metal line with other
metal line(s), since these connections improve reliability and quality in line-
to-via connections (see Brody, Figs. 1-2). An artisan is presumed to possess
both skill and common sense and, therefore, would recognize to use reliable
line-to-via connections not just for underlying but also for overlying
connections. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Furthermore, as we stated supra, Mitani’s cover Figure certainly
would suggest to one skilled in the art that the width of a metal line would
be less than respective underlying and overlying vias connected to the metal
line.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17 and
also the rejections of claims 18-20 and 23.

Appeal 2010-005105
Application 11/444,629

9
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Matsunaga and Brody teaches the limitation of:
1. “wherein a second width of the second portion is less than a first
width of the first portion” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Matsunaga and
Brody teaches the limitation of:
2. “wherein the first width is substantially equal to a width of the via”
as recited in claim 4; and
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Mitani
and Brody teaches the limitation of:
3. “wherein the width of the metal line is less than the first
dimension and the second dimension” as recited in claim 17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-23 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 4 is reversed.
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc