Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
As to claim 3, appellant argues that Balamurugan fails to mention a last column
number or of placing this last column number in the header of the wafer map data file
for the next partial wafer. The examiner does not deny that Balamurugan fails to teach
a header. However, the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. §103 and the examiner finds that
the wafer map host of the reference includes data for the last column number and that
as data from each partial wafer is uploaded into the wafer map, the same wafer map
data file is used for all partial wafers with different last column values (pointing to
column 5, lines 60-64, and column 6, lines 2-7). The examiner also admits that
Balamurugan may not specifically teach how an information file is organized (answer-
page 14), though the examiner finds that the wafer map host of Balamurugan includes
data for the last column number. Since appellant appears to admit that Balamurugan
provides a map for the whole wafer, the examiner contends that this suggests that the
map data host is a singular file with sub files for each partial wafer. Since data is
uploaded into the file and retrieved for the next cut, the examiner contends that “how the
files are titled (header) does not affect the process” and that “[a]s the cut depends upon
the location of that column, the information is within the file, if not in a header” (answer-
page 14). Accordingly, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
provide the last column number in a header in Balamurugan. We find the
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007