Ex Parte Wood et al - Page 2



               Appeal 2007-0942                                                                             
               Application 10/666,742                                                                       

                      17.  A method for thinning a semiconductor substrate, comprising:                     
               forming a support structure on an active surface of the semiconductor                        
                      substrate;                                                                            
               removing material from a back side of the semiconductor substrate to form a                  
                      thinned semiconductor substrate; and                                                  
               transporting the thinned semiconductor substrate for further processing.                     
                      The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of                 
               the appealed claims:                                                                         
               Leedy  US 5,869,354 Feb.   9, 1999                                                           
               Grigg  US 6,562,661 B2 May 13, 2003                                                          
                      Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for thinning a                  
               semiconductor substrate comprising forming a support structure on the                        
               active surface of the substrate.  Material is then removed from the back side                
               of the substrate.                                                                            
                      Appealed claims 17-20 stand rejected under  35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as                     
               being anticipated by Leedy.  Claims 21, 23-27, and 30-34 stand rejected                      
               under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leedy in view of                         
               Grigg.                                                                                       
                      We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for                         
               patentability.  However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are well                     
               founded and supported by the prior art evidence relied upon.  Accordingly,                   
               we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons                      
               expressed in the Answer.                                                                     



                                                     2                                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013