Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
ceramic coating disclosed by Haluska to the structure disclzXosed
by Kobayashi.
On the other hand, however, we agree with appellant that
even if the references were combined in the manner proposed by
the examiner, the resulting combination would not meet all the
claimed limitations; in particular, it would not have a ceramic
layer “covering . . . the sides of the primary passivation
[layer] created by etching at the bond pads and streets”
(emphasis added). The examiner indicates at the bottom of page 6
of the answer that tungsten 9 of Kobayashi, shown in Figure 5(e),
is “at the surface of the device,” i.e., as we understand it, he
would interpret layer 8 (Figure 5(e)) or 69 (Figure 6(e)) of
Kobayashi as being the “primary passivation layer” recited in the
claims. However, if the nitrided ceramic coating of Haluska were
applied to the top of either of the structures shown in Kobayashi
Figures 5(e) or 6(d) it is not evident, nor does the examiner
explain, how this would result in a ceramic layer covering the
sides of the layer 8 or 69 at holes h’, since those holes would
already be filled by tungsten 9 or 610, respectively.
Alternatively, we do not consider that it would have been obvious
to apply the nitrided ceramic coating to the Kobayashi structure
with unfilled holes h’ (i.e., as shown in Figures 5(d) or 6(c)),
because the holes would then serve no purpose.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007