Appeal No. 2003-0200 4
Application No. 09/250,524
It is the examiner’s position that Agarwala teaches a substrate having in part, “a
wiring layer on the substrate including flat metal terminals (Au layer of 14 in direct contact
with first bumps16), said flat metal terminals physically separated (by surface 12 and the
intervening ball limiting layers) and different from said bonding pads.” See Answer, pages
3 and 4. We disagree with the examiner’s findings.
The critical portion of the claimed subject matter requires, “a wiring layer on the
substrate including flat metal terminals physically separated and different from said
bonding pads.” See claim 57. There is general agreement that Agarwala discloses chip
bonding pads 10 and a wiring layer on the substrate including flat metal terminals. See
Brief, page 5 and Answer, page 3. The examiner submits that surface 12 provides the
requisite separation between the flat metal terminals and the intervening ball limiting layer
14. It is evident however, from Figures 1 to 4 that surface 12 provides an intervening
layer only at the periphery of the pads. Furthermore, Agarwala teaches that even if the
conductor is inside the substrate 12, a portion of the conductor 10 must be exposed as
shown in Figure 1. See column 9, lines 12-19. Accordingly, we conclude that there
necessarily is some direct contact between a portion of the conductor 10 and the wiring
layer 14. As the Answer has failed to distinguish between the wiring layer on the substrate
and item 14, we conclude that there is no evidence teaching or disclosing the requisite
physical separation required by the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, on the record
before us, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007