Ex parte SOORIAKUMAR et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 98-1230                                                          
          Application 08/316,753                                                      




               Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it                
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.  A hermetically sealed microelectronic device suitable              
          for use as a microprocessor or computer chip, comprising:                   
               a substrate wafer having associated electronics and at                 
          least one metal bond pad;                                                   
               a dielectric layer deposited atop said substrate wafer to              
          a thickness of at least two microns to form a dielectric/metal              
          seal including a plurality of signal leads; and                             
               a cover wafer anodically bonded to said dielectric layer               
          and defining a sealed cavity therebetween to house and protect              
          said electronics, the dielectric layer having a coefficient of              
          expansion thermally matched to the coefficients of expansion                
          of the substrate wafer and the cover wafer and having no                    
          surface variations greater than 1000 Angstroms, whereby said                
          microelectronic device is packaged in its own container and                 
          hermetically sealed.                                                        
               The reference relied on by the examiner is:                            
          Mikkor                4,773,972              Sept. 27, 1988                 
               Claims 1 through 4, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35                    
          U.S.C.                                                                      
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkor.                                    
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 4, 8 and 9               
          is reversed.                                                                

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007