Appeal No. 2005-0896
Application 09/947,125
copper foil using an adhesive (specification, page 8, lines 3-7)
and, in the embodiment claimed in claim 6, are positioned below
the circuit pattern (6a) to cause the substantial stress
reduction recited in that claim. Angulas’ electrically
conducting layers (17 and 19) in dielectric layer 15 likewise are
copper layers below the circuitized substrate (col. 4, lines 32-
36; figure 6). Because Angulas’ layers are made of the same
material as the appellants’ protection pad layers and are
positioned similarly relative to the circuit pattern, it
reasonably appears that Angulas’ layers would provide the same or
substantially the same stress reduction effect as those of the
appellants when Angulas’ dielectric layer containing the
electrically conducting layers is directly bonded to a
semiconductor chip as suggested by Melton. As stated in In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990),
“when the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the products
of the applicant and the prior art are the same [i.e., the
appellants’ dielectric layer/copper protection pad layer
combination and Angulas’ dielectric layer containing electrically
conductive copper layers], the applicant has the burden of
showing that they are not.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007