Appeal No. 2001-1451
Application No. 09/166,656
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Furthermore, "[t]hat knowledge can not come from the
applicant's invention itself." Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447, 24
USPQ2d at 1446.
In the instant case, the examiner has pointed to no
teaching, suggestion, or implication in the prior art, and we
find none, to modify Filippazzi such that the probe terminates at
the active region. Furthermore, Chatterjee alone fails to
satisfy the claim language as the probe fails to extend from the
back surface to the active region wherein the interconnect layer
is disposed near the front surface. Instead, the interconnect
layer is between the probe and the back surface. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 17 and 19
through 23.
The examiner also rejects claims 1 through 17 and 19 through
23 over Gaul in view of AAPA. The examiner asserts that the
probe terminates at the active region because "[t]he broad
recitation of the claim does not require the probe to contact the
bottom part of the source/drain regions." Similar to Filippazzi
the probe is connected to the active regions via an interconnect
layer 30, but does not terminate at the source or drain. Again
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007