Appeal No. 1997-0166
Application No. 08/409,933
have been clear to one of ordinary skill and knowledge of the art that the element under the bump
electrode is indeed a pad as it is a configuration that is fundamental in the semiconductor art.
Appellants argue that it is evident from review of the translation of Yabe,
supplied by appellants with an amendment filed on October 2, 1995, that Yabe does not show or
describe an electrode pad between the bump electrode and the substrate. From our review of Yabe,
we note that figures 1 and 2 show a structure between insulating layer (3) and the lower portion of
bump electrode (4). However, it is unclear from the drawing of Yabe as to whether or not this structure
is an electrode pad. Turning to the specification of Yabe, the specification is silent as to this structure.
As the structure shown in the drawing is between the bump electrode and the insulating layer of the
semiconductor chip, we find that the structure disclosed by Yabe is an electrode pad. However, if we
are incorrect as to the structure of Yabe being an electrode pad, then we find that the secondary
reference to Merrin clearly teaches this feature, for the reasons set forth, infra. Appellants assert
(reply brief, page 6) that Merrin does not supply the deficiencies of Yabe because in Merrin, the
aluminum land (18) is formed on chip (15) rather than on substrate (11). Additionally, appellants argue
(reply brief, page 7) that the aluminum land is positioned between the chip (15) and the mound (24),
rather than between the substrate (11) and the mound (24) and that (reply brief, page 5) “[b]ecause
Merrin specifically discloses that the chip 15 is a resistor, transistor, or diode, there would not be a
reason to assume that the chip 15 includes a semiconductor substrate.” Claims 17 and 21 call for an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007