Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
not the method steps required by claim 43 (Supp. Answer 4, citing Allen col.
3, ll. 45-48). The Examiner finds Brouillette discloses a method of forming
a slot in a silicon semiconductor substrate by making a cut in a first surface
of the substrate with a circular saw blade and removing material from a
second surface of the substrate, the combination of steps forming a slot that
passes entirely through the substrate (id. 4, citing Brouillette col. 5, l. 52, to
col. 6, l. 30, and Figs. 4A-C and 7A-C). The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the “slot of
Allen using the two sided slot forming technique described by Brouillette . .
. in order to improve quality of the cut, reduce substrate cracking, and
provide clean and strong edges by using entrance cuts instead of exit cuts” as
taught in the latter reference (id. 5, citing Brouillette col. 6, ll. 14-30). The
Examiner further concludes the formation of Allen’s slot by Brouillette’s
method would inherently provide endwalls formed by the combined cuttings
(id. 5). In this respect, the Examiner contends the claim limitation on the
angle formed in the endwalls reads “on a simple vertical slot” (id.).
Appellants contend there is no motivation to combine the teachings of
Allen and Brouillette (Br. 6). Appellants contend Allen discloses forming a
slot in a silicon substrate with a diamond saw blade in making a print head
of an ink jet printer cartridge and does not suggest “a problem with this
approach” (id. 6-7). Appellants contend Brouillette discloses a method for
dicing a semiconductor wafer into dies without forming slots, and dicing is
distinct from slotting as it inherently does not create endwalls and the
reference “is totally silent as to such a feature” (id. 7). Appellants contend
Brouillette is thus not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013