Appeal No. 96-2740
Application No. 08/242,602
compensation alleged to have been obvious by the examiner except in appellants’
disclosure.
It is true that the prior art knew of the problem regarding misalignment due to the
difference in coefficient of thermal expansion of the two substrates when heating the two
substrates having aligned patterns up to a temperature for bonding the substrates
together. However, as strenuously argued by appellants, and we agree, the prior art
admitted to by appellants did not teach or suggest the solution to this recognized problem.
That is, APA did not teach or suggest presetting the first pattern to have dimensions
greater than the preset dimensions of the black mask pattern by an amount equal to the
difference of the thermal expansion of the first and second substrates nor did APA teach or
suggest aligning the center of the first pattern with the center of the black mask pattern and
then applying the heat or pressure to bond the substrates together with a space
therebetween so that after cooling, the two patterns are aligned across the surface of the
substrates, as claimed.
There may be times, of course, where the mere recognition of a problem would
suggest its solution to the skilled artisan. However, in the instant case, we find no
evidence suggesting that the mere recognition of the alignment problem by the prior art
would have led skilled artisans to appellants’ particular solution regarding presetting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007