Appeal No. 2003-2137
Application No. 09/236,183
1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Claim 4 on appeal requires that the
sacrificial metal layer is “in direct contact” with the integrated
circuit chip.
Appellants argue that an important difference between claim 4
on appeal and the references is that the claim requires the
sacrificial layer to be in direct contact with the integrated chip
while the sacrificial layer of the references does not touch or is
not in “direct contact” with the integrated chip (Brief, pages 6-
7). The examiner finds that metal layer 120 of Beckenbaugh is a
sacrificial metal layer that is in “direct contact” with the
integrated circuit chip “via bonding pad (78)” (Answer, page 3).
Implicitly, the examiner construes the term “in direct contact” to
include intervening structures such as the bonding pad 78. We
disagree.
As argued by appellants in reply to the examiner’s rejection
under paragraph one of section 112 (now withdrawn), basis for the
term “in direct contact” may be found in the specification at page
4, l. 32-page 5, l. 15, as well as Figures 6A-6C (Brief, pages 4-5;
see also Paper No. 6 and the Answer, page 3). The specification
teaches that a sacrificial metal layer is deposited on the surface
of the insulator layer (page 2, ll. 21-22), thus necessarily
filling the opened vias and contacting or touching the integrated
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007