Appeal No. 95-2483
Application 08/098,008
reasoning advanced by the examiner in the answer as to those
dependent claims and present independent claims 1 and 15 on
appeal, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 6, 11 to 15,
26 to 29, 34 to 36, 40, 41, and 44. As set forth later in this
opinion, the rejection of claims 38, 39, 42, 43, and 45 is
reversed.
The following language of independent claims 1 and 15 on
appeal is common to each of them and argued by appellants: that
the claimed filler material is stated to be Acontinuous from said
die to said lead frame@; and that the at least one conductive
bond lead be Aformed on said filler material@ from a bond pad on
said die to the lead frame.
As to the limitation of the filler material being continuous
from the die to the lead frame, we agree with the examiner=s
position between the statement of the rejection at page 3 of the
answer and the responsive arguments portion at page 5 of the
answer, that the filler material 22 is continuous between the
semiconductor die 20 and the lead frame paddle 26 in Figure 2 of
Lai. That is, there is a vertical continuity between them.
Although Figure 2 does not show the details of this relationship,
it is apparent from the corresponding Figure 1 showing that the
adhesive 14, comprising both the binder 16 and the glass spheres
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007