Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
The examiner identifies Figure 15 and column 5, lines 14-20, of Balamurugan for
movement of the wafer table to the locator die and determining coordinates. The
examiner also identifies column 5, lines 26-28, of Balamurugan, for the removal of all
dies from the wafer map that are not part of the partial wafer using the coordinates
determined after wafer table movement.
These portions of Balamurugan identified by the examiner do, indeed, seem to
disclose the features appellant argues are not suggested by Balamurugan.
In reply, appellant again argues the problems of Balamurugan which are
overcome by the instant invention by processing partial wafers even if the last column of
the first row does not contain a die and without both x and y coordinate information and
without a reference die (reply brief-page 4). While this may be true, appellant points to
no specific claim language which distinguishes over the prior art in this manner.
Appellant further argues that, in Balamurugan, the last partial wafer must contain
at least one full die in the reference die row and that this “is not a requirement of the
present invention.” While this may not be a requirement of the present invention, the
instant claimed invention also does not preclude the possibility of the last partial wafer
containing at least one full die in the reference die row. Therefore, this argument is not
persuasive of nonobviousness.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007