Appeal No. 2006-0312
Application No. 10/145,171
on the wafer. As in appellants’ apparatus, the ionized air is
used in JP ‘790 to reduce the accumulation of electrostatic
charge on the wafer surface.
The principal argument advanced by appellants is that JP
‘790 does not disclose directing the ionized gas onto the
substrate, prior to dicing and after the thickness of the
substrate is reduced by grinding which, according to appellants,
reduces warpage of the substrate. Appellants emphasize that the
ionized air of JP ‘790 is provided during the grinding process,
not afterwards, and the ionized air is not directed to the
substrate.
The flaw in appellants’ argument, as explained by the
examiner, is that the argument is not germane to the subject
matter on appeal. While the appealed claims define an apparatus,
appellants’ argument is directed to a process of operation
performed by the apparatus. The examiner has set forth
persuasive reasoning that the apparatus of JP ‘790 is fully
capable of directing ionized air onto the substrate after the
grinding process and prior to the dicing step. On the other
hand, appellants have not presented a convincing line of
reasoning which demonstrates that the apparatus of JP ‘790 is not
capable of directing ionized air onto the substrate prior to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007