Appeal No. 96-0410
Application 08/161,015
pads 5 in Figs. 1 and 2. LeParquier’s contribution in the art
depicted in Figs. 4 through 6 appears to use welding rather than
soldering.
Continuing on the same points, the barrier metal layer 24 in
Fig. 2 of Mones may be considered to be a flat pad on an
integrated circuit substrate, but again there is no flat solder
pad that is formed before the solder bump 28 as depicted in Fig.
3 of this reference. There is no testing in Mones. Finally
Koopman’s figures show the formation of a solder bump 15 on the
integrated circuit chip 11 in the Fig. 1 series of figures.
As to the feature of the claims requiring flat solder pads,
appellants’ own admitted prior art appears to have been a better
starting point than any of the references relied upon by the
examiner. Indeed, except for the feature of independent claim 1
of probing a flat solder pad directly before reflowing the
solder, the other features of this claim appear to have been
known in appellants’ admitted prior art.
The real question is still as correctly identified by the
examiner that the order of the steps was critical to an
understanding of the claimed invention, as expressed by the
examiner at the top of page 6 of the answer. However, we
disagree with the examiner’s conclusion that Koopman teaches that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007