Appeal No. 1997-0166
Application No. 08/409,933
provide moisture resistance. In Merrin, we find that the glass layer (19) to be a passivation layer. We
note that appellants' passivation film (3) can be formed of phosphosilicate glass (specification, page 6
and claim 16). Because Yabe does not extend the polyimide film (6) into the area of the bump
electrode (4), but instead uses powdered SiO in the polyimide film (5) around the bump electrode (4),
2
we conclude that it would have been contrary to Yabe’s teachings to extend the surface protection film
(6) into the area of the bump electrode (4). We further conclude that there would have been no
suggestion to have polyimide film (6) of Yabe extend below passivation film (5) in view of Yabe’s
teaching of having each of the protective layers cover separate areas of the semiconductor chip (1), and
in view of Merrin's’ teaching of having only a single protective layer (19).
The examiner also relies on the reference to Engeler for a teaching of the metal layer containing
Pd, Ni and Ti. We note that while this limitation does not appear in claim 26, this limitation is recited in
claim 16. Appellants do not present any arguments regarding this limitation. We therefore find that
Engeler teaches forming a metal layer in a semiconductor connection from Pd, Ni and Ti (col. 2, lines
44-51) and conclude that Engeler would have fairly suggested utilizing Pd, Ni and Ti for the metal layer.
Claim 16 also requires that the metal layer has a thickness of about 4000 angstroms, i.e., .4µm. We
find that Engeler is silent as to the thickness of the metal layer, as is Merrin. Appellants' position is that
the references do not disclose or suggest the 4000 angstrom thickness of the metal layer (4a). The
examiner’s answer is silent as to this limitation. However, we need not reach this issue as Engeler does
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007