Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
matter or Allen (id.). Appellants contend the term “slot” is defined in the
context of claim 43 (id. 7-8). Appellants contend Allen does not disclose
substrate edge problems or strength problems in forming the slot, and thus,
“[l]acking any evidence that such factors are problematic for Allen’s print
cartridge there is no motivation to apply teachings from Brouillette’s dicing
techniques” thereto (id. 8). Appellants contend “Allen teaches directly away
from any motivation for the skilled artisan to go research other slot forming
techniques” and thus “examine Brouillette” which “is silent as to forming a
feature within a substrate” (id. 8-9). Appellants contend the combination of
Allen and Brouillette does not teach the limitations of claim 43 because
“Allen is silent as to such a slot configuration” claimed as is Brouillette (id.
10).
The Examiner responds both Allen and Brouillette cut entirely
through semiconductor substrates using a saw, and dicing a wafer is a slot
formation process forming sidewalls and endwalls (Supp. Answer 5-6, citing
Brouillette’s Fig. 1). The Examiner contends the disclosure in Allen to form
a slot through the substrate with a saw blade is motivation to perform the
slot forming process using saw cutting techniques such as that of Brouillette
(id. 6-7).
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and the underling issues
include whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Allen
and Brouillette.
The plain language of claim 43 specifies a method of forming any
manner of slot in any manner of semiconductor substrate comprising at least
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013