Appeal No. 96-2085
Application No. 08/301,536
they have been cut, are finally covered with the second final
passivation film" (column 6, lines 48 and 49).
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 22-26
under § 103 over the collective teachings of the admitted prior
art, Udo, Takayama and Motonami. Claim 22 on appeal defines a
method wherein the protective silicon nitride layer is formed on
the exposed portion of the second insulating layer which covers
the fuse link. However, Motonami evidences that it was known in
the art to provide a protective silicon nitride layer over an
insulating layer which, in turn, covers a fuse link. Motonami
discloses that the silicon nitride protection film serves as a
stopper when the fuse link and the covering insulating film is
blown off by a laser beam. Although Motonami does not disclose
the claimed step of forming a second opening in the protective
layer over the fuse to allow for exposure to a laser, the
paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of appellants' specification
discloses that it was known in the art to expose the fuse to a
laser through an intervening insulating film, but "it is
conventional to have an opening 28 over the fuse in the area
where the fuse will be heated" since overlying layers inhibit the
laser. Accordingly, we find that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an opening in
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007