Appeal 2006-2181
Application 10/878,586
adjacent contact regions” does not find descriptive support in the original
specification within the meaning of § 112, first paragraph. Although
Appellants’ Specification attributes significance to narrowing the distance
between adjacent contact regions, this is not tantamount to conveying to one
of ordinary skill in the art the claimed concept of the ratio of a dimension of
a contact region to the separation distance between adjacent contact regions
being at least 10:1. For one, as set forth in our decision, the claimed ratio
has no upper limit. Secondly, the claimed ratio encompasses bond pad
arrays having relatively large contact areas separated by distances within the
prior art that are also relatively large. For instance, a ratio of 10:1 can be
achieved with distances between contact areas that correspond to the prior
art distances depicted in Appellants’ drawings when the contact areas are
sufficiently large. Hence, it can be seen that there is an essential difference
between the concepts of minimizing the distance between contact areas and
establishing a ratio between a dimension of the contact regions and the
separation distance therebetween. We also note that the appealed claims do
not define the “dimension” of a contact region such that claimed term can
broadly embrace any of the height, length, or width of the contact.
Appellants contend that the claimed ratios would be readily apparent
in the original Specification to one of ordinary skill in the art of
semiconductors “because ratios are one of the fundamental languages of
semiconductors. In fact, virtually every aspect of semiconductor
manufacture involves consideration of ratios” (Request for Recon, paragraph
bridging pp. 3-4). However, Appellants have proffered no factual evidence
to support this contention, nor the argument that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have gleaned the significance of the claimed ratios upon reading
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013