Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
that choosing a particular shape would have been “an obvious
matter of design choice” (Answer, page 5).
Turning first to appellants’ argument that “the composite
bumps are deformed when the bond is formed rather than
undergoing elastic compression, as in Fujimoto and Saito (JP
4-6841)” (Brief, pages 17, 20-21 and 23), we find it to be
unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claims 7, 11,
15 and 18 which makes no mention of “undergoing elastic
compression . . .” (emphasis added). What is recited in those
claims is “bringing together said integrated circuit element
and said substrate so that said composite bumps contact said
substrate input/output pads and are deformed during said
contact, . . .” (emphasis added). That is exactly what
Fujimoto discloses: composite bumps 26 are deformed during
their contact with substrate input/output pads 29 (Figure 2c).
Turning next to appellants' assertions that “a
nonconductive adhesive between the integrated circuit element
and the substrate is not required, as in Fujimoto, . . .” and
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007