Appeal No. 2003-1315
Application No. 09/503,838
in the art a “dummy structure having a structure that replicates
the test structure.” Appellant additionally argues (brief, page
7) that the applied references neither teach nor would have
suggested the claimed step of accessing and using the stored
parasitic capacitance when analyzing the test structure.
Aeba explains (column 3, lines 24 and 25; column 5, lines
26 through 30) that both the electrode 7 on first bonding pad
area A1 and bonding pad 6a on second bonding pad area A2 are
contacted by probes of a capacitance measurement system to
determine the capacitance of the interlayer insulator film 4 that
interrupts the conductor path between the bonding pad 6a, wiring
conductor 3a and electrode 7. In other words, Aeba is measuring
the capacitance of the insulator film 4 which serves as a
“discontinuity” in “a dummy structure.” If the discontinuity
makes the structure a dummy structure, then Aeba does not
disclose a test structure. Thus, we agree with the appellant’s
argument that the dummy structure in Aeba does not replicate a
test structure as required by the claims on appeal.
We agree with the examiner that Olowolafe uses a computer
when making C-V measurements, but we disagree with the examiner’s
conclusion that the skilled artisan would have known to access a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007