Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 43, as it stands of record as presented in the Amendment filed
May 28, 2004, illustrates Appellants’ invention of a method of forming slots
in a semiconductor substrate, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
43. A method of forming slots in a semiconductor substrate having
first and second opposing surfaces comprising:
making a cut into a first surface of a semiconductor substrate using a
cutting tool, wherein the cutting tool has an axis of rotation that is not
perpendicular to the first surface; and,
removing material from a second surface of the semiconductor
substrate effective to form, in combination with said cut, a slot at least a
portion of which passes entirely through the substrate, the slot being defined,
at least in part, by first and second sidewalls and first and second endwalls
extending therebetween, and wherein said making forms a first portion of
the end walls and said removing forms a second portion of the end walls and
wherein the first and second portions of each of the end walls meet at [sic]
angle greater than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the substrate.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references in the ground
of rejection involving claims 43, 46, and 47:
Allen US 4,746,935 May 24, 1988
Brouillette US 6,271,102 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Appellants request review of the ground of rejection of claims 43, 46,
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen in view of
Brouillette (Br. 5; Supp. Answer 4-5).
Appellants’ contentions are based on independent claim 43. Thus, we
decide this appeal on claim 43 with dependent claims 46 and 47 standing or
falling therewith (Br. 11). 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The Examiner finds Allen discloses a method of forming a slot in a
silicon semiconductor substrate using a diamond saw blade cutting tool, but
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013