Appeal No. 2001-2082
Application No. 08/943,146
portion of the surface portion (brief, page 8). Appellants
conclude that Mikkor’s disclosure lacks the claimed features of
the substrates bonded only at a surface portion of the first
substrate and the eutectic portion contacting the entire surface
portion (id.). We note that the Examiner does not challenge
these arguments and instead, dismisses the claimed features as
process limitations (answer, pages 3 & 5).
A review of claim 21 confirms that the claim requires
bonding the first and the second substrates only at a surface
portion of the first substrate. The claim further recites a
gold-silicon eutectic portion interposed between the two
substrates contacting the entire surface portion on the first
substrate. Therefore, the two substrates are bonded through a
eutectic portion and only at the surface portion of the first
substrate.
Based on our analysis of Mikkor above, we agree with
Appellants that Mikkor’s substrates are bonded at the surface of
Titanium layer 3 relating to a surface portion of the first
substrate. However, eutectic portion 6 of Mikkor contacts only a
part of the surface of the titanium layer and cannot be equated
with the eutectic portion “contacting the entire surface portion
of the first substrate,” as recited in claim 21. Therefore,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007