Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
Claim 10, which depends from claim 7, further recites
"wherein said polymer is polyamic acid polyamide.” Fujimoto
and Saito (JP4-6841) neither teach nor suggest the polymer
body being polyamic acid polyamide. Kanakarajan has been
relied on by the examiner for its disclosure of “a process of
manufacturing flexible polyamic acid polyamide metal-clad
laminates for use in flexible printed circuits and tape
automated bonding applications” (Answer, page 6). While it
may be well known that polyamic acid polyamide has “desirable
thermal, mechanical and electrical properties,” as the
examiner has asserted (Answer, page 7), this does not amount
to a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to replace Fujimoto’s polymer used in the composite
bumps with Kanakarajan’s polyamic acid polyamide laminate
known for its use in flexible printed circuits and tape
automated bonding applications. We fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or motivation in the applied prior art
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute Kanakarajan’s polyamic acid polyamide for
Fujimoto’s polymer body to arrive at the claimed invention.
It is our opinion that the examiner’s determination of
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007