Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
It is the examiner’s position that, with regard to independent claims 1 and 8-11,
Balamurugan discloses the claimed subject matter but for “the language of moving
wafer table to the last left column and the label of the coordinates being identical to the
instant application” (answer-page 3).
In particular, the examiner points to column 4, lines 57-58, for making all partial
cuts perpendicular to the wafer flat; to column 4, line 59, for a teaching of all partial cuts
following a cut sequence where the first cut section is with a reference die; to column 4,
lines 62-64, for other cut sections are in numerical order from right to left; and to column
4, line 59, for a teaching of the first partial wafer of the full wafer having a reference die.
The examiner contends that Balamurugan identifies a pseudo reference die for
each partial wafer not having a reference die in which the die is the first die in the
bottom right (citing the auxiliary reference die in Figure 4), since this auxiliary reference
die meets appellant’s definition, at page 10 of the specification, as a die that acts as a
reference die if there is no reference die available.
The examiner contends, further, that Balamurugan moves the wafer table to the
last die in the row of the partial wafer and determines the coordinates, at column 5, lines
14-20.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007