Appeal No. 2003-2137
Application No. 09/236,183
circuit chip. See the specification at page 4, ll. 2-8, where
openings 12 are filled with a metal to form vias 26 connected to
the selected vias 11. Accordingly, giving the term “in direct
contact” its ordinary meaning, as illustrated by the specification
and drawings, we construe this term as requiring the sacrificial
metal layer to touch the integrated circuit chip.
The examiner argues that Ahmad shows a single conductive trace
21 formed over the chip being “in direct contact” with the
integrated circuit chip (Answer, page 4). However, Ahmad teaches
that the conductive traces 21 and 22 are “deposited over a
passivation layer” (col. 5, ll. 49-50), and thus are not in “direct
contact” with the integrated circuit chip as the claim has been
construed above.
The examiner also argues that the conductive barrier layer
120 of Beckenbaugh is also a “sacrificial metal layer” in direct
contact with the integrated circuit chip (Answer, page 4). We note
that the conductive etch-barrier layer 120 of Beckenbaugh is not a
required layer (col. 5, ll. 35-38). Regardless, sacrificial metal
layer 130 (or 120) is in direct contact with bonding pad 78 (see
Figure 5 and col. 4, l. 60-col. 5, l. 18), and thus is not “in
direct contact” with the integrated circuit chip 20 as this term
has been construed above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007