Appeal No. 2000-2109
Application No. 09/159,609
and therefore include the aforementioned limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
2, 4 through 6, 8 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Meuleman, Temple, Buti and Kim.
We note that in rejecting claims 10, 12 through 14 and 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which are dependent on
independent claim 1, the Examiner further applied the Kim
reference to the combination of the Husimi, Temple and Buti. We
further note that in rejecting claims 10, 12 through 14 and 16
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which are dependent on
independent claim 1, the Examiner further applied the Kim
reference to the combination of the Meuleman, Temple and Buti.
However, we find nothing in the Kim reference that provides any
suggestion for overcoming the Husimi, Temple and Buti references
deficiency, or the Meuleman, Temple and Buti references
deficiency, of failing to teach the claimed two semiconductor
wafer bonding by silicidizing a thin metal layer. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 12
through 14 and 16 through 20.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 10, 12 through 14
and 16 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
1212
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007