Appeal No. 96-0523
Application 07/910,763
and 9 is reversed, as is the rejection of claim 3 which
depends on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites that the bus line includes low resistance
portions of a material different from the material of the bus
lines which facilitates cutting the wafer into blocks which
each include a semiconductor chip. This refers to the low
resistance wiring lines 8 in appellant's figures 1 and 4. The
only place where the examiner's rejection addresses the
limitations of claims 4 and 10 appears to be the statement
that "bus line structures in both Stopper et al. and Quinn et
al. can be and are cleanly cut" (Examiner's Answer, page 7).
This ignores the limitations of low resistance portions being
formed of a material different from the material of the bus
lines (claim 8). Neither Stopper nor Quinn disclose that the
bus lines can be formed of separate portions and, therefore,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 4. The rejection of claim 4
and claim 5, which depends on claim 4, is reversed.
Claim 10 does not clearly require the "portions" to be of
a different material than the bus lines, but does recite that
portions be "formed of a low electrical resistance material,
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007