Appeal No. 2003-0123
Application No. 09/383,781
above, the Examiner has not provided motivation for using the two step illumination
process of Tanaka on the backside of a semiconductor device.
The Examiner added Jack to the combination of Tanaka and Takemura to
reject the subject matter of claims 5 and 13.4 Neither Tanaka nor Takemura disclose
etching silicon to provide an image path to the underlying circuit side. As stated
above, the Examiner has not provided motivation for using the two step illumination
process of Tanaka on the backside of a semiconductor device. Jack does not remedy
this deficiency.
For the reasons stated above we reverse the Examiner’s rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1 to 3, and 28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Makita and Ohtani; claim 27 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Makita,
Ohtani and Nishida; claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Tanaka and Takemura; and claims 5 to 13 as unpatentable
4 Claims 5 and 13 are dependent on claim 4.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007