Appeal No. 1997-1693
Application No. 08/254,667
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 5-9 and 12. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 5, the Examiner, as the
basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify the
semiconductor chip package structure of Takahashi by relying
on Itaru to supply the missing teaching of "exterior" wire
bonding. We note that the relevant portion of independent
claim 5 recites:
bonding wires for connecting said electrodes
of said semiconductor chip to corresponding points
on said inner lead portions, said points being
located in said first upper region in a location
exterior of said semiconductor chip and spatially
apart from said semiconductor chip.
In the Examiner’s view, the skilled artisan would find it
obvious to wire bond the leads in Takahashi at an "exterior"
location since Itaru establishes that "it is known in the art
to wire bond leads away from the chip at an 'exterior'
portion" (Answer, page 5).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007