Appeal No. 96-0410
Application 08/161,015
the claimed order of the steps is taught or suggested by this
reference. Koopman clearly teaches probing before a reflow
solder process, which reflow solder process may be an option
according to the showing in Fig. 1E and the teaching at col. 8,
lines 15 through 19 as identified by the examiner in the answer.
Again, there is no starting point of flat solder pads in this or
in any other reference relied upon before the reflow solder
process and there is no teaching or suggestion of probing flat
solders pads with an electrical test instrument as also required
by this claim.
Finally, even if we were to consider appellants’ background
of the invention at pages 1 and 2 of the specification as filed
as part of the reasoning process of the outstanding rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in addition to the prior art relied upon to
LeParquier, Koopman and Mones according to the examiner’s
statement of the rejection, we do not end up with the reordering
of the prior art approach which is the formation of solder bumps,
testing the bumps and than executing a reflow process. Stated
differently, even considering these three references as applied
along with the prior art approach expressed by appellants in
pages 1 and 2 of the specification as filed, the artisan would
have not been led to have reordered the prior art process to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007