Ex Parte Moore

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2003

09146519 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SCOTT E. MOORE
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
____________
HEARD: May 08, 2003
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 2 through 9, 11 through 15, and 18 through
20. Claims 1, 10, and 21 through 43 have been canceled. Claims
16 and 17 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appellant's invention relates to a method of making a
semiconductor product. The method includes the step of applying
an explosive force to a conductive layer to move it into an
opening in the semiconductor wafer. Claim 18 is illustrative of
the claimed invention and reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
2
18. A method of filling a surface discontinuity in a
semiconductor product, said method comprising the steps of:
depositing conductive material over said surface
discontinuity;
subsequently, applying an explosive force to said conductive
material; and
deforming said conductive material into said surface
discontinuity, and wherein the deformation of said conductive
material into said surface discontinuity is caused by the
application of said explosive force.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Cranston 3,737,986 Jun. 12, 1973
Dobson 5,527,561 Jun. 18, 1996
Jeffryes et al. (Jeffryes) 5,575,850 Nov. 19, 1996
Claims 2 through 9, 11, and 18 through 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dobson in view
of Cranston.
Claims 12 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dobson in view of Cranston and Jeffryes.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed March 11, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 19, filed December 26, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 22,
filed May 13, 2002) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 9,
11 through 15, and 18 through 20.
Each of independent claims 2, 11, 14, 15, and 18 recites
applying "an explosive force" to either a conductive or a
malleable material. Appellant defines "explosive force" in the
specification (page 8, lines 11-14) as "any force characterized
by high energy waves of the type produced by explosions." Thus,
the claims all require the type of force that would be
characterized by high energy waves as those produced by
explosions.
Dobson discloses a method of filling holes in a
semiconductor wafer by subjecting the filling material to
elevated pressure and temperature sufficient to cause the layer
to deform. Nowhere does Dobson disclose using explosive forces
or combustion. Dobson states (column 3, lines 61-62) that "inert
or reactive gases may be used to create the high pressure."
Dobson further explains (column 7, lines 41-45) that the wafer
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
4
and layers "may be subjected to suitably controlled pressures" by
filling the pressure vessel with gas and (column 6, lines 21-23)
that the pressure must be maintained for a "sufficiently long"
time. As pointed out by appellant (Brief, page 6), an explosive
force is a brief, high velocity force, not a controlled
"sufficiently long" pressure.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that the high
pressures and the use of reactive gases in Dobson indicate that
the force obtained by Dobson "would correspond to an explosive
force." However, high pressure does not require an explosive
force, and Dobson does not suggest that the reactive gases
explode.
The examiner states that the explosive force is "inherent in
Dobson." However, the examiner has failed to provide any
evidence that the explosive force is inevitable in Dobson. As
explained in Continental Can Co., U.S.A. v. Monsanto Co.,
948 F.2d 1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and
reproduced in Finnigan Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365,
51 USPQ2d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1999), "Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
5
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient." High pressures clearly can
occur without an explosion, and, therefore, explosive forces are
not inherent in Dobson's method.
The examiner also contends (Answer, page 3) that Cranston
renders obvious the use of an explosive force in Dobson's method.
However, Cranston discloses using an explosive force for bonding
two work pieces together, not for filling a hole in the
semiconductor wafer. We find no suggestion in Cranston to use
such explosive forces for moving material to fill holes or voids.
Accordingly, as the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claims 2, 11, 14, 15, and 18 and their dependents,
claims 3 through 9, 19, and 20.
As to claims 12 through 15, the examiner adds Jeffryes to
the primary combination of Dobson and Cranston. Jeffryes, like
Dobson, discloses maintaining a high temperature and pressure for
a sufficient time. Jeffryes does not suggest using an explosive
force. Consequently, Jeffryes fails to cure the deficiencies in
the combination of Dobson and Cranston, so we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12 through 15.
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through 9,
11 through 15, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
apg/vsh
Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
7
THOMAS J. D'AMICO
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN AND OSHINSKY
2101 L STREET NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-1526