Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
from both sides partially through the thickness of a semiconductor wafer”
and thus each side is “a dicing entrance surface” (id., col. 3, ll. 32-43). In
Figs. 4A-C, Brouillette illustrates partially cutting through one surface of
wafer 31 with a wide blade diamond saw and then cutting partially through
the other surface with a diamond saw, resulting in a single dicing separation
that is one of “a number [sic, of] intersecting dice cuts . . . formed . . .
through the wafer to effect physical separation of one or more chips” (id.,
col. 5, l. 51, to col. 6, l. 13).
We find one of ordinary skill in this art would have found from
Brouillette Figs. 4A-C that the first cut would form a cut in side 35 of wafer
31 in similar manner to the slot formed in the prior art method illustrated in
Brouillette Fig. 1, and the second cut would form a cut in the other side 34
of the wafer in the same manner.1 The cuts on each surface provide “strong,
clean edges” because “[e]ntrance cuts . . . are much stronger and cleaner than
exit cuts” (id. col. 6, ll. 14-29). Brouillette illustrates in Figs. 7A-C different
edge structures provided by different saw blades, including wide saw blades,
wherein each edge structure has a portion resulting from the cutting on each
surface (id. col. 7, ll. 15-21). The two portions of each of the edges
illustrated in Fig. 7C meet at an angle greater than or equal to ninety degrees
relative to substrate 31.
1 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013