Appeal No. 2000-0806
Application No. 09/016,398
expansion, presumably to achieve the same goals advanced by
Appellant. Dordi, however, does not teach or suggest varying
the modulus of elasticity or thickness of one of its bases in
order to make the thermal stresses in the two bases in
response to temperature changes substantially equal. In any
event, the Examiner did not rely on Dordi to meet this
limitation of Appellant's invention.
Upon a review of the references relied upon by the
Examiner, we fail to find any suggestion or reason to provide
a carrier base and reinforcement base having substantially the
same size as the semiconductor chip, as recited in claim 14.
Dordi and Selna teach semiconductor chips substantially
smaller than the bases(s) on which they are mounted.
Yamashita and Suzuki were not relied upon by the Examiner to
teach sizing the bases as claimed, and in any case do not
teach or suggest bases of an appropriate size. Therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 14-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dordi and Selna.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007