Appeal 2006-3286
Application 10/422,290
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Xin US 6,227,944 B1 May 08, 2001
Yamamoto US 6,767,426 B1 Jul. 27, 2004
ISSUES ON APPEAL
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Xin (Answer 3).
Appellant contends that neither reference discloses the selection of a
support tape where the diameter of the tape is greater than the diameter of
the wafer by an amount about equal to the length of the peripheral wafer
rounding after thinning (Br. 6). Appellant also contends that the definition
of the diameter of the wafer in this application is different from the diameter
as disclosed by the applied references (Br. 7-9).
The Examiner contends that Yamamoto teaches that the diameter of a
support tape layer for a semiconductor wafer in a thinning process may be
greater than the diameter of the wafer surface while Xin teaches the
advantages of providing a rounded periphery for each wafer (Answer 3).
Accordingly, we determine that the issue in this appeal is whether the
combination of references disclose or suggest a support tape in a thinning
process with the same relative diameter as required by claim 1 on appeal,
based upon a rounded periphery between the surface edges of the wafer.
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM this rejection on
appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013