Appeal No. 96-0633
Application 07/971,041
material which extends into the dicing region. There is no
apparent distinction to us of claim 1 on appeal over the
substance of these figures in Ishii except for perhaps the
argued feature just set forth by appellants. This has not
been quoted in the brief but the last clause of independent
claim 1 on appeal, for example, recites that the apertures are
each filled with a layer of a second material “confined to be
within the aperture.” A similar limitation is set forth at
the end of broader independent claim 5 on appeal. We do not
construe the statement of this feature in each of these claims
as being equivalent to stating that the filling must be
confined only within said aperture. Appellants’ argument as
to this feature is best expressed at the bottom of page 3 of
the reply brief where appellants indicate that Ishii teaches
the use of a trench “which is filled with material which
extends into the dicing region (i.e., the fill material is not
confined within the aperture or formed only in the trench and
the device forming region).” Such an explicit limitation is
not recited at the end of independent claims 1 and 5 on
appeal. Again, there is no recitation in these claims that
the fill material is confined only within the aperture or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007