Ex parte CHIEN et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-1548                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/660,304                                                  


               The appellants’ invention relates to a high contrast, low              
          noise alignment mark for laser trimming of redundant memory                 


          arrays.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from              
          a reading of exemplary claim 1 , which is reproduced as2                                             
          follows:                                                                    
               1.  An alignment mark structure formed on a silicon wafer              
          comprising:                                                                 
               a base pad;                                                            
               an anti-reflective-coating (ARC) layer over said base                  
          pad;                                                                        
               an insulative layer over said ARC layer; and                           
               a patterned opening within said insulative layer.                      
          extending      through said ARC layer, and terminating in said              
          base pad.                                                                   

               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Kitakata                  4,642,672              Feb. 10, 1987              
          Tominaga                  5,525,840              Jun. 11, 1996              
                                                  (Filed Nov. 9, 1994)                
          Oka                        61-84824              Apr. 30, 1986              


               2We note that claim 1, line 6 erroneously includes a “.” after the term
          layer (1st occurrance).  We consider this to be a formality that can be     
          addressed by the examiner subsequent to this appeal.                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007