Appeal No. 2006-1193 15
Application No. 09/961,036
As pointed out by the examiner [answer, page 11], appellants merely
state that the previously argued deficiencies of Agarwala and Yi are
incorporated by reference with respect to dependent claim 18 [brief, page
14]. Appellants further note that the cited Tummala Handbook illustrates a
no-bond pad metallization (i.e., the 2.3 micron Al-4% Cu) that is in direct
contact with a Cr layer [brief, page 14]. We note that appellants have failed
to explain precisely how the limitations of claim 18 distinguish over the
Tummala Handbook disclosure relied upon by the examiner.
We note that the cited Tummala Handbook explicitly discloses: “[a]s
many as four to six levels of wiring have been created on the chip,” this
clearly teaching the recited “metal-one (M1) to M6” layers that provide the
electrical interconnections within the chip package [page 133, ¶2, emphasis
added]. We further note that the Tummala Handbook explicitly discloses a
1.4 micron Al-4% Cu bond pad that attaches to (i.e., contacts) a third 2.3
micron Al-4% Cu metallization layer, as shown in Fig. 8.2 [page 133]. We
also note that the examiner has provided additional evidence that it is
notoriously well known for the bonding pad to be copper [answer, page 5;
see also Tummala Handbook, p. 137, last paragraph, and Fig. 8-6 on page
138]. Because we have fully addressed the alleged deficiencies of Agarwala
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007