Appeal No. 2003-1299
Application No. 09/443,443
the examiner to be that layer 19 shown in the figure of Freeman
is a dielectric layer having vias 22 formed therein, which
overlie metal layer 18. Hence, it appears that the examiner
equates the first interconnect level of appellants’ claim (layer
120 in appellants’ figure 1) with layer 13 of Freeman, and
equates the uppermost interconnected level (layer 133 in
appellants’ Figure 1) with Freeman’s layer 18. Vias 22 in layer
19 are positioned over layer 18, which the examiner equates as
bond pad. This bond pad of layer 18 overlies layer 14, which is
another dielectric layer. The examiner equates layer 19 as the
passivation layer that overlies metal layer 18.
We are mindful of appellants’ discussion of the meaning of
term “passivation layer”. However, appellants’ specification
discloses that layer 136 is a “dielectric (passivation) layer”.
See page 9, line 3. The specification indicates that this
dielectric layer 136 is formed of a nitrogen-containing compound
or alternatively can include silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride,
a hydrogen and carbon -containing silicon oxide, or the like.
See page 9, lines 3-7 of the specification. Freeman indicates
that the dielectric layer 19 can be of silicon oxide or other
suitable materials such as oxynitride or borosilicate glass.
See column 3, lines 55-58 of Freeman. Hence, the examiner’s
position that dielectric layer 19 serves as appellants’ layer
136 is appropriate, especially in view of appellants’
specification, as discussed herein.
Therefore, with respect to claims 1-4, 10, 24-27, and 32,
we affirm the rejection.
With respect claim 5, beginning on page 9 of the brief,
appellants argue that claim 5 requires that the plurality of
support structures are interconnected with unremoved portions of
the passivation layer. Appellants state that Freeman’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007