Appeal No. 2004-0999
Application No. 09/997,086
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
since the combination suggested by the Examiner does not teach or
suggest "forming at least one wide trench through said
microelectronic device wafer interconnect layer within said at
least one dicing street" as required in independent claim 15.
Therefore, we have not sustained the Examiner's rejection of
claims 15, 19, and 20.
Rejection of Claim 16
Dependent claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Ibnabdeljalil in view of Igarashi and further
in view of Kroeninger. We find that Kroeninger teaches laser
cutting to form trenches as Examiner pointed out on page 8 of the
answer. However, Kroeninger does not teach forming at least one
trench through an interconnect layer. Consequently, the
combination of Ibnabdeljalil, Mori, and Kroeninger does not teach
or suggest "forming at least one wide trench through said
microelectronic device wafer interconnect layer within said at
least one dicing street" required in claim 16. Therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 16.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007