Appeal No. 2001-2315
Application 09/145,106
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner we make reference to the briefs2 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of the
Appellants and the Examiner, for the reason stated infra, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 through 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
On pages 2 and 3 of the supplemental brief, Appellants argue
that Yew does not teach a passivation layer comprising plasma
polymerized methylsiloxane extending over portions of the die and
the die carrier in a packaged integrated circuit device. On
pages 3 and 4 of the supplemental appeal brief, Appellants argue
that neither Biederman nor Verzaro suggests using a passivation
layer comprising plasma polymerized methylsiloxane extending over
a portion of the die and the die carrier. Appellants argue that
Biederman teaches only the use of plasma polymerized organo-
2
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 21, 2000.
Appellants filed a supplemental appeal brief on December 6, 2000.
Appellants filed a reply brief on April 23, 2001. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on May 2, 2001, stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007