Ex Parte Jiang et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-2144                                                        
          Application No. 09/483,712                                                  
          using a lead frame as an interposer (Brief, page 3).  A further             
          understanding of the invention may be gleaned from representative           
          independent claim 1, as reproduced below:                                   
               1. A chip-scale package comprising:                                    
          a semiconductor die having an active surface having at least one            
          bond pad thereon;                                                           
          at least one conductive trace spaced from said at least one bond            
               pad and having an upper surface and a lower surface, the               
               lower surface of said at least one conductive trace                    
               substantially non-conductively attached to a portion of the            
               active surface of said semiconductor die;                              
          at least one discrete conductive bond member connecting the at              
               least one conductive trace to the at least one bond pad on             
               the active surface of said semiconductor die;                          
          at least one carrier bond attached to the upper surface of the at           
               least one conductive trace; and                                        
          an encapsulant material encapsulating said semiconductor die, the           
               at least one conductive trace, the at least one discrete               
               conductive bond and a portion of the at least one carrier              
               bond, the at least one carrier bond having another portion             
               extending beyond said encapsulant material.                            
               Appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall                  
          together (Brief, page 4), contrary to the examiner’s statement              
          (Answer, page 3, ¶(7); see the Reply Brief, page 2).  Since                 
          appellants provide reasonably specific, substantive arguments for           
          the patentability of individual claims 3, 6, 11, 12 and 14                  
          (Brief, page 9), we consider these claims separately while the              
          remaining claims stand or fall together.  See 37 CFR                        

                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007