Ex parte MOTONAMI et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 1998

08074517 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 11, 1993. According to1
appellants, this application is a division of Application
07/994,436, filed December 21, 1992, now U.S. Patent No.
5,241,212, issued August 31, 1993; which is a continuation of
Application 07/689,325, filed April 23, 1991.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 KAORU MOTONAMI
and MASAO NAGATOMO
__________
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application 08/074,5171
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
We note that appellants make reference, throughout the2
brief to “claim 1.” Since there is no claim 1, appellants are
apparently referring to “claim 7” and we construe this to be the
case.
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 7 through 11, the only claims pending in the application.2
The invention is directed to a method of manufacturing a
semiconductor device which has specific circuits and redundant
circuits as well as connections which can be fused and removed
for replacing a defective circuit with a redundant circuit.
Independent claim 7, illustrative of the invention, is
reproduced as follows:
7. A manufacturing method of a semiconductor device which
includes at least a specific circuit portion and a spare
redundant circuit portion having the same function as said
specific circuit portion as well as a connection which can be
fused and removed for replacing a defective specific circuit
portion with said redundant circuit portion, said method
comprising the steps of:
forming interconnection layers and a testing electrode on an
insulator layer formed on a main surface of a semiconductor
substrate, said interconnection layers being spaced from each
other and located at opposite sides of a region of a connection
conductive layer embedded in and completely covered by said
insulator layer, and a testing electrode being spaced from said
interconnection layers;
forming a concave portion which is located in said insulator
layer between said interconnection layers and has a final bottom
wall, formed of said insulator layer, located immediately above
said connection conductive layer; and
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
3
forming a protection film on said insulator layer so as to
cover surfaces of at least said interconnection layers, and
expose a surface of said testing electrode.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Yabu et al. 4,455,194 Jun. 19, 1984
(Yabu)
Takayama et al. 4,536,949 Aug. 27, 1985
(Takayama)
Fischer 4,853,758 Aug. 1, 1989
Billig et al. 5,025,300 Jun. 18, 1991
(Billig) (filed Jul. 25, 1990)
Claims 7 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fischer in view of Billig, Takayama or Yabu.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Initially, we note, in passing, that while the
examiner’s statement of rejection appears to be a rejection over
Fischer, as the primary reference, in view of any one of Billig,
Takayama or Yabu, because claim 7 includes the limitation of a
“testing electrode” and the examiner appears to rely only on
either one of Takayama or Yabu, but not Billig, for this feature,
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
4
perhaps the examiner meant to reject the claims over Fischer in
view of Billig and further in view of either one of Takayama or
Yabu.
In any event, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because independent claim 7
requires a concave portion to be formed in the insulator layer,
the concave portion having a final bottom wall which is “located
immediately above said connection conductive layer” [emphasis
ours]. The meaning of this is clear from a reference to the
instant disclosure wherein Figs. 2A-C show the final bottom of
the concave portion immediately, or directly, above connection
conductive layer element 3.
It is the examiner’s apparent position that this limitation
is taught by either Fischer or Billig. With regard to Fischer,
the examiner contends that the concave portion 16 of dielectric
layer 13 in Fig. 1 has a bottom wall and that bottom wall is
immediately above the connection conductive layer 12. While we
understand the examiner’s position in contending that portion 16
of Fischer is, indeed, above element 12, and such an
interpretation would appear to meet the claim language if the
language only called for the bottom wall to be above the
connection conductive layer, the instant claim language calls for
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
5
the bottom wall to be immediately above the connection conductive
layer. When this term is construed in light of the disclosure,
it means that the bottom wall is directly above the connection
conductive layer so as to cover the connection conductive layer
and not above the connection conductive layer, but off to one
side. The examiner’s interpretation effectively reads the term
immediately out of the claim since the examiner interprets the
language to mean that the bottom wall may be located anywhere in
relation to the connection conductive layer so long as it is
somewhere in a plane at a higher level than the connection
conductive layer. If the examiner’s interpretation is accepted,
there would have been no need for appellants to include the term
immediately.
With regard to Billig, the examiner appears to contend
[answer - page 8] that there is a concave portion which has a
bottom wall formed immediately above the connection conductive
layer 14 within insulating layer 15. However, it is not clear
what the bottom wall would be in Billig. If it is the top
surface of layer 13, then, clearly, this bottom wall would be
beneath, and not above, connection conductive element 14, as
required by the instant claims. If the examiner is somehow
referring to film 30 over the top of element 14, it is not
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
6
understood how this film can be considered, in any way, shape or
form, to be a “bottom wall” of a concave portion.
Since the examiner has not adequately addressed the portion
of claim 7 requiring a final bottom wall to be located
immediately above the connection conductive layer and shown,
convincingly, how this claim limitation is taught or suggested by
the applied references, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 7 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As a matter of completeness, however, we note that we do not
find persuasive appellants’ argument [brief - page 9] that
Fischer does not disclose the claimed “connection conductive
layer embedded in and completely covered by said insulator
layer.” Element 12 of Fischer is clearly “embedded” in
insulator, or dielectric, layer 13. We find no requirement in
the claim that the bottom surface of element 12 be covered by
layer 13 and do not construe the terms “embedded” or “completely
covered” so narrowly. But, even if so required, we find no
reason why the two insulating layers 11 and 13, of Fischer,
together, cannot be said to constitute “an insulator layer,” as
claimed.
Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
7
In any event, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7
through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
James T. Carmichael )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-2320
Application No. 08/074,517
8
Lowe, Price, Leblanc & Becker
99 Canal Center Plaza, Ste. 300
Alexandria, VA 22314