Ex Parte Tan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2011

11048975 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LIANG TAN and HERBERT J. ERHARDT
____________________

Appeal 2009-011352
Application 11/048,975
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JONI Y. CHANG and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011352
Application 11/048,975

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows
(emphasis added):
1. An integrated circuit on a wafer DIE, the DIE comprising:
(a) a substrate;
(b) a seal ring disposed perpendicular to the substrate and spanning
a portion of the substrate, wherein a first conducting element is
disposed laterally to the seal ring and on a first side of the seal
ring;
(c) two metal lines both disposed parallel to the substrate and on a
second side of the seal ring opposite the first side, wherein the two
metal lines span the substrate in two distinct layers; and
(d) a second conducting element comprising a substantially non-
oxidizing metal that is resistant to oxidation and positioned
between the two distinct layers of the two metal lines, wherein the
second conducting element spans a portion of the substrate and
extends past the seal ring to electrically connect at least one of the
two metal lines to the first conducting element.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yu (US 6,815,821 B2) and Chang
(US 6,300,223 B1).
Appeal 2009-011352
Application 11/048,975

3
Appellant’s Contention
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because “the term ‘seal ring’ should be interpreted to mean the internal seal
ring as shown in figure 2” (App. Br. 7), and because:
Using Appellant's definition of "seal ring," Appellant
submits Yu and Chang do not teach or suggest a first
conducting element disposed laterally to the seal ring and on a
first side of the seal ring. Yu discloses a seal ring structure.
Chang discloses a method for forming a seal ring structure that
includes trenches.
Additionally, Yu and Chang do not disclose or suggest
"two metal lines both disposed parallel to the substrate and on a
second side of the seal ring opposite the first side." And finally,
nothing found in Yu and Chang teaches or suggests "a second
conducting element comprising a substantially non-oxidizing
metal that is resistant to oxidation and positioned between the
two distinct layers of the two metal lines, wherein the second
conducting element spans a portion of the substrate and extends
past the seal ring to electrically connect at least one of the two
metal lines to the first conducting element.'" Therefore, for at
least the following reason, the combination of Yu and Chang
does not render Appellant's independent claim l obvious.

(App. Br. 7)(emphasis omitted).
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11 for similar reasoning as set forth with respect to claim 1 in the
above contention. (App. Br. 12-13).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-19 as being obvious
because the combination of Yu and Chang do not disclose or suggest the
argued limitations?
Appeal 2009-011352
Application 11/048,975

4

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above specifically cited contentions.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred with respect
to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Yu and Chang.
(2) On this record, claims 1-19 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj