Appeal No. 2003-2137
Application No. 09/236,183
testing the integrated circuit chip with the test circuit;
removing substantially all of the sacrificial metal layer and
removing the insulating layer.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Ahmad et al. (Ahmad) 5,483,175 Jan. 09, 1996
Beckenbaugh et al. (Beckenbaugh) 5,593,903 Jan. 14, 1997
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ahmad in combination with Beckenbaugh (Answer,
page 3).3 We reverse the examiner’s rejection essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Ahmad discloses test circuitry within
the chip area, forming conductive traces 21 and 22, and removing
the sacrificial metal layer 21 by a planarization technique
(Answer, page 3). The examiner recognizes that Ahmad does not
disclose providing test circuitry in kerf areas adjacent to
the chip prior to separating the chip from other chips on the
semiconductor wafer, patterning the deposited sacrificial metal
layer to form at least one connection, and scribing the wafer in
3The examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of claims 4-
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 (Answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007