Appeal 2007-0942
Application 10/666,742
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 17-20.1
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that Leedy
describes providing a support structure on the active surface of a
semiconductor substrate and thinning the back side of the substrate. It is
Appellants’ principal argument that Leedy’s provision of a preformed
support does not meet the requirement of forming a support structure on the
active surface of the substrate. According to Appellants, the “preformed
bonding frame 19 of Leedy, which is bonded to the substrate 10, is not
formed on an active surface of a semiconductor substrate” (principal Br. 7,
second para.). In support of their argument, Appellants submit a number of
definitions for the word “form” at page 3 of their Reply Brief, including, “to
construct or frame” and “to make or produce.” However, we do not find that
these definitions are availing to Appellants. In our view, Leedy’s bonding of
support structure 19 is fairly encompassed by the definitions of the verb
“form” offered by Appellants, namely, to construct, to frame, to make, or to
produce. Appellants’ Specification has not provided any particular
definition of the term “forming” which would exclude the bonding disclosed
by Leedy.
1 Since Appellants have not separately argued any of claims 17-20, these
claims stand or fall together.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013