Appeal No. 2006-2218
Application No. 10/029,649
Merchant and Terasawa are performed subsequent to removal of
native oxides from the substrates (Br. 12-15). In particular,
Appellant asserts that it is by including the recited oxide
affinity material in the amount recited that the cleaning of the
oxide, as described by the references, becomes unnecessary (Br.
15).
In response, the Examiner asserts that the cleaning step
described in Merchant is performed to clean the surface of
chromium layer 29 and has nothing to do with the bond layer 27
which is suggested to include other elements in place of or in
combination with palladium (Answer 13). The Examiner further
argues that Terasawa, while suggesting the use of acids for
removal of native oxide, does provide for an Au-Sb alloy as the
metal layer 62 at the interface of the two joining substrates
(Answer 14).
We disagree with Appellant (Br. 13) that because a cleaning
step prior to joining the substrates is suggested, the disclosed
alloy as modified by Terasawa does not remove the native oxide.
The claims require that “the alloy is sufficient to remove a
native oxide” which merely requires that the alloy have oxide
removal capability instead of actually removing the oxide.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013