Appeal No. 2004-1834
Application No. 10/158,885
It is the examiner’s contention that although not stated in like language, “the die
referred to in the instant application (figure 9, last column of a partial) and in
Balamurugan (figure 22, auxiliary reference die) are identical. Balamurugan removes all
dies from the wafer map that are not part of the partial wafer using said coordinate
(column 5 lines 19 and 26-28), and picks and places dies (removing is picking, column 1
lines 29-30, the good dies are picked up and placed)” (answer-page 4).
In a similar manner, the examiner has identified corresponding portions of
Balamurugan with regard to the elements of instant claims 2-4 and 6-11, at pages 4-6 of
the answer, and concludes that it “would be [have been] obvious...to modify
Balamurugan to include moving from one column to another as moving to the left as
shown by figure 15 and to label the auxiliary die x1,y1 rather than the locater [sic,
locator] die labeled x1,y1 as the labeling is not critical to the wafer movement” (answer-
pages 6-7).
The examiner does appear to have set forth a prima facie case of obviousness
by citing art which establishes the level of skilled artisans, by pointing out the elements
of the reference which correspond to the elements of the instant claims, and by giving
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007