Appeal No. 2004-0133
Application No. 09/668,031
maintains that appellants fail “to appreciate the flexibility
taught by the invention of Lee et al that is shown in the various
embodiments” (page 7 of answer, last paragraph), the examiner has
pointed to no disclosure in Lee which supports the position that
the means for bonding a heat sink to the back surface can be the
same as the means for bonding a heat sink to the first surface.
On the other hand, we find Lee to be quite specific in teaching
that Figure 6 applies to the heat sink on the first surface
whereas Figures 11 and 12 apply to the heat sink on the back
surface. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 102
rejection of claim 12.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8
and 9 under § 103. Claim 2 requires an array of I/O pads on the
first surface of a substrate and an array of contacts on the
second surface of the substrate, wherein the die of claim 1 is
mounted such that the die contacts are coupled to adjacent I/O
pads. Appellants acknowledge at page 10 of the principal brief
that “the attachment of integrated circuits to substrates having
I/O pads is generally well known in the packaging arts” and that
“flip-chip mounting of integrated circuits onto substrates having
I/O pads is generally known” (page 10 of principal brief, first
paragraph). It is appellants’ contention that “the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007