Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
As indicated earlier in this opinion, we introduces a new
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 14 and 18-21 in view of
the earlier noted portions of the specification as filed as to
what appellants have indicated was in the prior art, further in
view of Aulicino. The earlier paragraph in this opinion relating
to the bridging paragraphs at columns 1 and 2 of the
specification as filed and the noted paragraph at page 8 of the
specification as filed indicate there was a known problem in the
art as to the deformation of the solder balls according to the
prior art approach. It appears
to us that Aulicino is somewhat representative of these
admissions.
Thus, clauses (a) through (c) were known in the art as to claim
14.
Because the prior art left an impression of the depositor upon
the solder ball structure according to the prior art approach,
this led to the unpredictability in the subsequent solder ball
connections in prior art C4 connection operations for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007