Appeal No. 1997-0166
Application No. 08/409,933
the bump electrode (4) to prevent shorting of the connection between a TAB lead (7) and the bump
electrode (4), we conclude that Yabe fairly suggests forming the bump electrode at a projection
distance above the polyimide film (5) that will ensure a proper connection between the TAB lead and
the bump electrode (4). Appellants assert that Yabe lacks disclosure of reducing heat induced defects
or absorbing pressure to suppress occurrence of cracks in the resin, and cites (reply brief, page 7) In
re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied,
Dillon v. Manbeck, 111 S.Ct. 1682 (1991) asserting that “[i]n an obviousness analysis, the properties
of a claimed invention and the prior art must be considered in determining the ultimate question of
patentability.” We find that both Yabe and appellants are concerned with providing a connection
between the bump electrode of a semiconductor device and a bonded lead. Both Yabe and appellants
achieve the connection by providing a bump electrode over a semiconductor substrate to allow signals
to be input to and output from a semiconductor device and a resin film on a surface of the
semiconductor substrate except at the top area of the bump electrode (specification, page 2 and Yabe,
translation, pages 3-5). In appellants' invention, the bump electrode projects a distance above the top
surface of the resin film (6). In Yabe, the polyimide film (5) has a thickness of +0 ~ -10µm with respect
to the height of the bump electrode (4). While appellants project the bump electrode above the resin
film to reduce heat defects and absorb pressure during the bonding process, Yabe sets the thickness of
the polyimide film with respect to both overall thickness of 18µm and between +0 ~ -10µm with respect
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007