Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 9,
11 through 15, and 18 through 20.
Each of independent claims 2, 11, 14, 15, and 18 recites
applying "an explosive force" to either a conductive or a
malleable material. Appellant defines "explosive force" in the
specification (page 8, lines 11-14) as "any force characterized
by high energy waves of the type produced by explosions." Thus,
the claims all require the type of force that would be
characterized by high energy waves as those produced by
explosions.
Dobson discloses a method of filling holes in a
semiconductor wafer by subjecting the filling material to
elevated pressure and temperature sufficient to cause the layer
to deform. Nowhere does Dobson disclose using explosive forces
or combustion. Dobson states (column 3, lines 61-62) that "inert
or reactive gases may be used to create the high pressure."
Dobson further explains (column 7, lines 41-45) that the wafer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007