Appeal No. 2004-0651
Application No. 09/898,082
First, appellant argues that the conductive filling material
4 in the first and second portions of Kawai (Figure 12(c)) do not
contact each other. We disagree. These conductive filling
materials do contact each other, via bonding member 5 and wiring
2 and this type of “contact” is not precluded by the instant
claims. The instant claims do not require a direct contact with
no intervening elements.
Next, appellant argues that the “protruding above”
limitation of claim 20 is not shown or suggested in Kawai.
Again, we disagree. Bonding member 5, a conductive material, may
be considered as a protruding portion of conductive filling
material 4 in Figure 12(c) of Kawai. While appellant contends
that since material 5 is tin and material 4 is copper, material 5
may not be considered a protrusion of material 4, this describes
only one embodiment of Kawai.
Kawai suggests, at column 7, lines 13-14, that bonding
member 5 is made of a “metal or an alloy.” Since there is no
indication that material 5 and material 4 cannot be, or should
not be, the same material, the artisan would have recognized,
from Kawai’s disclosure, that both materials may be copper, for
example. The only requirement in Kawai is that both materials be
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007