Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
the passivation layer to be a [sic] slots as appellant did in
claim 2 or as elongated slots in claim 15.” [Answer, page 5.]
We find that the language, given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, provides for a break in the passivation layer
predominately in the length-wise direction of the metal line(s).
Any “break” in the passivation layer necessarily will break up
the layer in both the width-wise and length-wise direction. The
additional language of “along a length” suggests more than a
break of equal dimensions. Terminals 9, 10 and 11, however, are
disclosed (column 3, lines 29 through 31) as formed “via holes
through the encapsulation layer 8" and are shown in Figure 1 as
formed in cylindrical openings in layer 8. Because the
cylindrical openings break up layer 8 equally in the length and
width direction, we find that the passivation layer of Agusta is
not broken up along a length as claimed. Therefore, we find that
Agusta fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 11, and
thereby the claims are not anticipated by Agusta.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 13 through 15 is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007