Appeal No. 2000-0949
Application No. 08/721,505
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
6-8, 15 and 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
37 CFR 1.196(b)
While we do not agree with the examiner with respect to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102, in our view, claim 14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made over the combination of Holdgrafer in view of the
admitted prior art at column 1, lines 58-68 and column 2, lines 16-29 of the specification
as filed in the reissue application.3
Holdgrafer teaches the following limitations of claim 14:
Limitations of Claim 14 Teachings in Holdgrafer
A semiconductor device wire bonding Holdgrafer teaches the use of the pattern
method recognition in a wire bonding system.
providing a semiconductor die having a Holdgrafer teaches the use of the vision
plurality of bond pads thereon connected system for use with dies with plural bond
to integrated circuits formed on the die; pads as shown in figures 1-3.
We have only applied the prior art to claim 14 for the sake of brevity and to address the aspect of3
"determining the longitudinal axis." We leave the remainder of the claims for the examiner to evaluate and
make determinations thereto.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007