Appeal No. 2004-0133
Application No. 09/668,031
layer is deposited over the barrier layer. It is of no moment
that Lee’s method of attaching the heat sink to the second
surface of the die is somewhat different to appellants’ method
inasmuch as claims 1, 5, and 7 define a product.
The § 102 rejection of claim 12 is another matter. Claim 12
provides a method wherein the die is provided having a barrier
layer and a metallic layer deposited on its back surface, and
such solderable back surface is then soldered to a metallic heat
sink. This methodology is not described in the embodiments
corresponding to Figures 11 and 12 of Lee which provide only a
gold-chromium alloy on the back surface of the die before it is
soldered to a heat sink. While the examiner relies on Figures 3
and 7 of Lee, we agree with appellants that the reference makes
it clear that Figure 7 is directed to providing a heat sink on
the front, not back surface of the die. Lee discloses at column
6, lines 56 et seq that Figure 7 is directed to providing heat
sink 75 on the front surface of the die. Also, at column 7,
lines 10 et seq, the reference explicitly discloses that Figures
11 and 12 illustrate two alternative methods of binding heat sink
80 to the back surface of the die.1 Although the examiner
1 Although Lee describes “top surface 71", inactive surface 71 of
Lee corresponds to appellants’ second back surface.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007