Appeal No. 2006-2317
Application No. 10/334,196
directly bonding them between devices. As recited in claim 1, Patti plainly teaches
and shows, according to the examiner’s analysis, interfacing conductive lines by
bonding the two devices together. It’s readily apparent to us and the artisan that the
interfacing that is in accordance with the examiner’s view in Patti is an indirect
interfacing of the metal conductors 25, 35 and 45 as comprising the claimed
conductive lines, in addition to the direct bonding of the flush copper pad 132 in
figures 6 and 7 and the identical depicted direct bonding between wafers as bonding
pads 210, 211 in figures 8 and 9, for example. These additional showings are
consistent with the initial showings in figure 1.
Essentially, the claim language actually set forth in representative
independent claim 1 on appeal is not consistent with appellants’ arguments
thereagainst. Based on the examiner’s correlation of the teachings and showings in
Patti and our own understanding of this reference, we do not agree with the
appellants’ urging in the brief and reply brief that the only conductors interfaced to
bond devices together in Patti are the conductor elements 51, 52 and 53 in figure 1,
also appearing as conductors 210, 211 in figures 8 and 9. We, therefore, do not
agree with appellants’ characterization that these elements are the only possible
structures of Patti that can be conductive lines.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007