Ex parte SEVERN - Page 6




            Appeal No. 2001-0014                                                   Page 6              
            Application No. 09/070,899                                                                 
            standing or falling together as a group and we will treat                                  
            claim 6 as the representative claim of that group.                                         
                  The appellant argues that the applied references do not                              
            teach or suggest the recited features related to a chip that                               
            is bonded face down upon a ceramic substrate so as to                                      
            hermetically seal the enclosure formed by the chip and the                                 
            substrate.  In particular, the appellant asserts that                                      
            hermetically sealing of an electrical feedthrough between the                              
            substrate and a chip, as disclosed by Chen, requires high                                  
            temperature bonding that would severely degrade the diode                                  
            junctions in the claimed structure due to unwanted diffusion                               
            (brief, p. 7).  Furthermore, the appellant argues that the                                 
            insulating bonding layer of Chen results in a seal that itself                             
            is electrically insulating and houses feedthroughs whereas the                             
            hermetic seal of the claimed invention is made of electrically                             
            conductive solder and cannot house                                                         




            feedthroughs (brief, p. 8).  The appellant concludes that,                                 
            absent appellant’s own disclosure, there are no reasons for                                
            combining teachings from different references to arrive at the                             
            appellant’s invention that removes the need for a separate                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007