Ex parte Michael

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 1997

07948570 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 1997)

Application for patent filed September 23, 1992.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte KEITH W. MICHAEL
________________
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,5701
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before CALVERT, COHEN and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 12 to
23, all the claims remaining in the application.
Claim 12 is representative of the subject matter in issue,
and reads (as amended by the Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.116, filed
May 20, 1994):
12. A hermetically sealed integrated circuit comprising:
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
It is noted that the number given in the examiner’s2
answer (page 2) for the Haluska et al. patent is incorrect.
-2-
a circuit subassembly having bond pads and streets;
a primary passivation layer on the surface of the
subassembly which is etched at the bond pads and streets; and
one or more ceramic layers covering the primary passivation
layer and the sides of the primary passivation created by etching
at the bond pads and streets;
wherein the ceramic layers comprise a ceramic material which
is deposited by a process selected from the group consisting of
chemical vapor deposition and physical vapor deposition.
The references relied upon by the primary examiner in the
final rejection are:2
Haluska et al. (Haluska) 4,849,296 Jul. 18, 1989
Kobayashi et al. (Kobayashi) 5,177,589 Jan. 5, 1993
(filed Sept. 25, 1991)
Claims 12 to 23 stand finally rejected:
(1) as failing to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112;
(2) as unpatentable over Haluska in view of Kobayashi, under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection (1)
The examiner takes the position that the claims are
indefinite, because the expression “one or more ceramic layers,”
found in each of independent claims 12, 15 and 19, is
“alternative claim language” which, according to the MPEP, makes
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
The examiner states in the supplement to the examiner’s3
answer (Paper No. 16) that a second ground of rejection of the
claims under § 112, second paragraph, is eliminated in view of
the aforementioned Amendment Under 37 CFR 1.116.
The discussion in part (a) of § 2173.05(h) concerning4
Markush groups is of no relevance here.
-3-
claims indefinite because the alternatives are not equivalent
(answer, pages 3 and 5). Appellant, on the other hand, asserts3
at page 3 of his brief that the language in question “simply
means, and can only be interpreted as, ‘at least one’ ceramic
layer,” and that “the Board has sanctioned such language,”
although no decision is cited in support of this statement.
The examiner does not cite any particular section of the
MPEP as a basis for his statement that a recitation of
alternatives is indefinite if they are not equivalent, and we
find none in § 2173.05(h), “Alternative Limitations.” To the4
contrary in fact, part (b) of § 2173.05(h) states that
“[a]lternative expressions using ‘or’ are acceptable” (page 2100-
153).
A claim complies with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 if its language, when read by a person of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the specification, describes the subject
matter with sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed
subject matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396,
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
-4-
186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). We have no doubt that the
expression “one or more ceramic layers” clearly defines the
bounds of what is claimed insofar as the number of layers is
concerned, and agree with appellant that it means the same thing
as “at least one ceramic layer.” In this regard we note that in
In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1227, 187 USPQ 664, 667-68 (CCPA
1975), the Court held that the claimed alternative expression
“one or several pieces” meant the same as “at least one piece”
and complied with § 112, second paragraph, since it did not
“render the boundaries of the [claimed] invention
undeterminable.”
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
The basis of this rejection is stated on pages 3 and 4 of
the examiner’s answer. After noting that Haluska discloses a
nitrided ceramic coating applicable to many electronic devices,
the examiner states (page 4):
Kobayashi et al. discloses the use of a refractory
metal in a multi-layer metalization [sic]. As shown in
Figure 6E [sic: 6(e)], a titanium nitride (TiN) film
67 is deposited as a barrier metal. A tungsten
silicide film 68 is deposited on top of the titanium
nitride film 67. Tungsten 610 contacts tungsten
silicide film 68 through a hole in the spin-on-glass
insulating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
In considering the record, we note that the features5
recited in claims 14, 18, 19 (diffusion barrier metal layer) and
23 are not shown in the drawings, as required by 37 CFR
§ 1.83(a).
-5-
use the multilevel metallization of Kobayashi et al.
with the nitrided ceramic coating of Haluska et al.
This is because Haluska et al. indicate that their
coating is suitable for electronic devices and
Kobayashi et al. show that their multilevel
metallization coexists with an insulation coating on
the surface of the semiconductor device.
Further, at page 7, the examiner concludes:
As to whether there is motivation to combine the
references, the Examiner believes that because Haluska
et al. teaches the use of the ceramic coating on a wide
variety of devices, including semiconductor devices,
the use of the coating on the structure of Kobayashi et
al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
After fully considering the record in this case in view of5
the arguments presented in appellant’s brief and the examiner’s
answer, we conclude that rejection (2) should not be sustained.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner lists three points by
which appellant alleges that his invention differs from Haluska.
We will assume for the sake of argument that the examiner is
correct in holding that points 1 and 3 do not patentably
distinguish the claims from Haluska. Moreover, we agree with the
examiner that, as a general proposition, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the nitrided
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
-6-
ceramic coating disclosed by Haluska to the structure disclzXosed
by Kobayashi.
On the other hand, however, we agree with appellant that
even if the references were combined in the manner proposed by
the examiner, the resulting combination would not meet all the
claimed limitations; in particular, it would not have a ceramic
layer “covering . . . the sides of the primary passivation
[layer] created by etching at the bond pads and streets”
(emphasis added). The examiner indicates at the bottom of page 6
of the answer that tungsten 9 of Kobayashi, shown in Figure 5(e),
is “at the surface of the device,” i.e., as we understand it, he
would interpret layer 8 (Figure 5(e)) or 69 (Figure 6(e)) of
Kobayashi as being the “primary passivation layer” recited in the
claims. However, if the nitrided ceramic coating of Haluska were
applied to the top of either of the structures shown in Kobayashi
Figures 5(e) or 6(d) it is not evident, nor does the examiner
explain, how this would result in a ceramic layer covering the
sides of the layer 8 or 69 at holes h’, since those holes would
already be filled by tungsten 9 or 610, respectively.
Alternatively, we do not consider that it would have been obvious
to apply the nitrided ceramic coating to the Kobayashi structure
with unfilled holes h’ (i.e., as shown in Figures 5(d) or 6(c)),
because the holes would then serve no purpose.
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
-7-
We therefore conclude that claims 12 to 23 are not
unpatentable over the combination of references applied.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 12 to 23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-3284
Application 07/948,570
-8-
Patent Department - Mail C01232
Dow Corning Corp.
Midland, MI 48686-0994