Appeal No. 95-2483
Application 08/098,008
In light of these considerations, appellants= argument that
their view that the reference teaches only the bonding material
being formed on the bond leads and on the semiconductive die
itself is misplaced. To us, the examiner=s view is just as
reasonable as appellants= just noted view as to this claimed
feature. In any event, the discussion at the top of page 2 of
appellants= specification recognizes that the prior art
fabrication processes and techniques were aware that bonding
wires may be caught within a coating material during the curing
operation, which clearly indicates that at least with respect
to the coating material below the wire bonds, they are therefore
Aon@ it.
We sustain the rejection of claims 2 to 6, 11 to 14, and
26 to 29 for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer,
which relies in-part upon our reasoning at pages 3 to 5 of our
earlier opinion. Appellants= general assertions with respect to
these claims at pages 5 through 7 of the brief on appeal are
misplaced and, first of all, they make only a general assertion
that the reference fails to teach or suggest the noted features.
In accordance with appellants= own arguments at the middle of
page 5 of the brief, this is an incomplete consideration of the
obviousness issues since the knowledge of the artisan and the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007