Appeal No. 1997-0166
Application No. 08/409,933
Appellants further assert that the references do not disclose or suggest the metal layer recited in
claims 17 and 21. It is the examiner’s position that Merrin discloses the use of a metal layer (figures 4
and 5) and that (answer, page 4) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
inserted a metal layer between an electrode pad and an electrode bump to facilitate the transference of
electrical signals to and from a semiconductor device. Appellants' position (reply brief, page 5) is that
in Merrin, the chromium layer (21) is positioned between the chip (15) and the solder mound (24)
rather than between the solder mound (24) and the substrate (11). At the outset, we note, as stated
supra, that we find the chip (15) to include a semiconductor substrate in view of Merrin’s disclosure
that the microminiaturized devices may be diodes and transistors which are active devices or “chips,”
and that (col. 4, line 73 through col. 5, line 1) “[d]uring the fabrication of chip 15 (step 17) an aluminum
land 18 (FIGURE 3) is deposited on each semiconductor region.” Accordingly, we find that in Merrin,
the chromium layer (21) with copper (22) and gold (23) deposits, is located between the solder mound
(24) and a semiconductor substrate of chip (15). With respect to the issue of whether it would have
been obvious to have provided the bump electrode of Yabe with a metal layer as taught by Merrin, we
first turn toYabe, who recognizes (translation, page 3) that a problem in the prior art is that the surface
protective layer (5) is polyimide which suffers from the drawback of lacking moisture resistance. To
overcome this problem, Yabe adds SiO powder to the polyimide film around the bump electrode and
2
at a thickness of 2 um and states (translation, page 4) that “[t]he effect of having a polyimide film with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007