Appeal No. 2004-0999
Application No. 09/997,086
the findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13, and 14
First, we will address the rejection of independent claims 1
and 9 and their dependent claims 3, 5-8, 11, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants argue that Ibnabdeljalil does not
teach forming at least one trench through the interconnect
layer within the at least one dicing street because
Ibnabdeljalil merely teaches a standard technique of dicing
completely through the interconnect layer and the semiconductor
wafer with a dicing saw. See page 11 of the brief. The
Examiner agrees with Appellants that Ibnabdeljalil fails to
teach forming at least one trench through the interconnect
layer. See last paragraph on page 4 of the answer. The
Examiner relies on Mori for a teaching of forming a trench
through the interconnect layer. See page 5 of the answer. The
Appellants argue that "[a]lthough the Mori patent teaches
forming a trench, it does not teach or suggest forming a trench
in an interconnect layer as required by the present claims."
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007