Appeal No. 2004-0648
Application No. 09/379,047
The examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Winer 5,963,781 October 5, 1999
OPINION
On page 3 of the brief, appellants argue that claims 1 and
24 are directed to detecting photon emissions from an integrated
circuit chip. Appellants argue that Winer does not teach this
aspect of the claim. Appellants argue that Winer teaches
detecting internal current induced by light at a p-n junction
within the die under test. Appellants argue that the detection
of photocurrent does not correspond to detecting photons or any
kind of photon emitted through the substrate.
The examiner disagrees. On page 4 of the answer, the
examiner asserts that Winer discloses removing a portion of the
substrate in the back side of the semiconductor chip as a
function of photons emitted through substrate remaining at the
back side and the examiner refers to column 6, lines 34-62 of
Winer. The examiner asserts that Winer shows photons entering,
and in order to measure the photocurrent, the photons entering
must be emitted as is recognized by a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
Hence, the critical issue before us is whether Winer
discloses, either explicitly or inherently, that photons are
emitted through the substrate.
In the instant case, we find that Winer does not explicitly
disclose that photons are emitted through the substrate. Winer
discloses (column 6, lines 34-55), that a photocurrent is created
by photons entering the p-n junction, and the light that gets
through generates a photocurrent, and that the photocurrent is
proportional to the thickness of substrate 46. Thus by
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007