Appeal 2007-2460
Application 10/709,179
ii. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 15-16 and further in
view of Akram, U.S. Pat. 6,861,763 (“Akram”)
iii. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ono as applied to claims 15-16 and further in view
of Koh, U.S. Published Application 2004/0135266
The application on appeal was filed on April 19, 2004 and claims foreign
priority benefit of Taiwan application 92109018, filed April 18, 2003. Ono
published on June 12, 2003, based upon an application filed August 27,
2001. Koh published on July 15, 2004 based upon an application filed
March 1, 2004, which claims benefit of PCT/SG01/00058, filed April 6,
2001. Akram issued on March 1, 2005 based upon an application filed
December 11, 2002. Ono, Koh and Akram are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e).3
ASE generally contends that a key aspect of its invention is the
formation of bump pads on the back side of a chip. Specifically, ASE
contends that:
What significantly distinguishes the structure of this invention
from the prior art references is that the present invention
teaches providing a chip with a backside with at least a bump
pad being formed on the backside of the chip and forming a
bump on the bump pad on the backside of the chip.
(Appeal Br. at 6).
The Examiner found that Ono’s semiconductor device has a bump on
a bump pad that is located on the backside of a chip. In particular, the
3 ASE’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief do not attempt to antedate the prior
art relied upon by the Examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013