Appeal No. 2003-1299
Application No. 09/443,443
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freeman and Lien, and further in view of
Takiar.
Claims 8, 9, 28, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Freeman and Lien in view of White.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Freeman and Lien in view of Hwang.
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1-5, 10, 24-27, 30 and 32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Freeman and Lien
Beginning on page 6 of brief, appellants argue that the
combination of Freeman and Lien fails to teach the removal of
portions of a passivation layer to expose portions of a bond
pad, and formation of a plurality of support structures
overlying the bond pad surface. Appellants argue that both
Freeman and Lien teach conventional patterning of the
passivation layer in which a single large opening is formed over
the bond pad. Appellants argue that the term “passivation
layer” is well known in the field of semiconductor fabrication
to refer to that dielectric or insulating layer overlying the
uppermost interconnect layer that is used to provide mechanical
protection to the underlying integrated circuit and a barrier
that prevents impurities, including moisture, from attacking the
integrated circuit.
In response, on page 7 of the answer, the examiner states
that Freeman discloses plural openings in passivation layer 19
to expose bond pad 18. The examiner also states that it is not
necessary that Freeman discloses the same advantages as the
instant invention, but it is sufficient that the same materials
are treated in the same manner. We understand the position of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007