Ex parte EZAWA et al. - Page 11




               Appeal No. 1997-0166                                                                                                    
               Application No. 08/409,933                                                                                              


               to the height of the bump electrode to prevent the short circuit that occurs during the manufacturing                   

               process if the TAB lead and chip come into contact.  While Yabe’s reasons for setting the thickness of                  

               the resin film with respect to the height of the bump electrode are not identical to those of appellant,                

               Yabe achieves the same results as appellants as Yabe sets forth that the polyimide film (5) has a                       

               thickness of +0 ~ -10 µm with respect to the height of the bump electrode.  Moreover, we note firstly,                  

               that as a general proposition, as long as some suggestion to combine the teachings of the references is                 

               provided by the prior art as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the                  

               identical reasons contemplated by the inventor.  See In re Dillon, id. at 1901.  Secondly, we note that                 

               we are not relying upon Yabe’s teachings of  resin film thickness with respect to the height of the bump                

               electrode  as a basis for combining the teachings of Yabe with the other references, as the other                       

               references to Merrin and Engeler are relied upon in the rejection for different issues.                                 

                       The examiner also relies upon Engeler for a teaching that the metal layer contains Pd, Ni and                   

               Ti.  However, we note that independent claims 17 and 21 do not contain this limitation.  We therefore                   

               consider this reference to be surplusage with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 21. Accordingly,                

               the rejection of claims 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe in view of                      
               Merrin and Engeler is affirmed . 2                                                                                      


                       2Even though we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 17, 18, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for       
               additional reasons than that advanced by the examiner, our  position is still based on the collective teachings of the  
               references applied in the examiner’s answer, and does not constitute a new ground of rejection.  See In re Bush, 296    
               F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 267 (CCPA 1961); See In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA       
                                                                 11                                                                    





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007