Appeal No. 1998-0152
Application No. 07/966,645
such step is found in Eichelberger” (Request for
Reconsideration-page 3).
Figure 1 of Eichelberger shows a thin film overlay 18 on
the surface of the device 14 and on the surface 13 of
substrate 12. While the surfaces of the device and the
substrate in Figure 1 of Eichelberger are not “adjacent and
substantially parallel,” as claimed, the surfaces would be
“adjacent and substantially parallel” if the device 14 were
placed within a cavity in the substrate 12 rather than on the
surface of substrate 12. Yet, as we explained in our
decision, at pages 4-5, and herein, supra, both Eichelberger
and Kornrumpf suggest that a semiconductor device may be
placed in a cavity in a substrate wherein the surface of the
device is substantially at the level of the substrate surface.
Clearly then, it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to have placed
the device 14 of Eichelberger in a cavity within substrate 12,
resulting in the thin film 18 being formed on the surface of
the device and on the surface of the substrate adjacent and
substantially parallel with the surface of the device.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007