Appeal No. 2002-1981
Application No. 09/316,580
Id. Appellants do not appear to dispute the examiner's
contention and, in fact, indicate that they have previously
proposed changing the dependencies of claims 4 and 5 to claim 7,
which reads on the structure shown in Figure 4. See appeal
brief, page 6.
As appellants do not present arguments traversing the
examiner's position, the rejection is affirmed.
Claim 10
It is the examiner's contention that the specification does
not support the presence of first, second and third bonding
materials in the final bonded wafer structure of claim 10. See
examiner's answer, pages 14-15. In support of their contention
that the specification does teach three bonding materials,
appellants reference Figures 5A and B and the disclosure in the
specification relating to the formation of nitrox 519 by reaction
of oxidizer drop 505 with polysilicon 514. Appeal brief, pages
8-9.
We have reviewed the referenced portion of the specification
and note that while first and second bonding materials are
initially utilized, they are ultimately consumed by the reaction
to form nitrox, such that only a single bonding zone remains in
the final structure. See specification, pages 9-10.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007