Appeal No. 1997-0439
Application 08/348,414
substrate including the steps of "forming a channel," of "filling the channel with an electrically conductive
material," and then of "cleaving the substrate through the channel . . . " (independent claims 18 and 21
on appeal). We cannot agree with the examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 8) that the steps of claims
18 to 21 "are inherently disclosed in the Hartman et al. reference."
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 6 and 7) that Hartman fails to teach or suggest the step of
cleaving the substrate in order to form the "end surface" recited in claims 18 and 21. We agree. We
find that the particular order of the steps used in the manufacture of the interconnect substrate recited in
appellants’ representative claim 18 on appeal is neither taught nor suggested by Hartman. This includes
Hartman’s Figures 1 and 2 embodiment, as well as the Figure 3 embodiment. In addition, we find that
Hartman’s Figure 3 embodiment fails to meet the limitation required in claim 18 that the substrate be
cleaved through the channel to create "a contact positioned at a nexus and an end surface."
Specifically, appellants’ claim 18 requires that first a channel be formed, then the channel be
filled with an electrically conductive material (i.e., solder), and then the substrate be cleaved through the
channel which already has the material therein. We find that Hartman, in contrast, first forms a channel
in a substrate by milling or cutting (see column 2, lines 40 to 43), then Hartman fills the channel with
solder (see columns 3 and 4). Thus, the timing of the process steps in Hartman are opposite from what
is required by appellants’ method claims 18 to 21 (i.e., first filling the channel with solder and then
cleaving or milling the substrate). We note that although Hartman discusses an etching step (see column
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007