Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
composite bumps and the substrate input/output pads, and the
applied prior art fails to suggest any motivation for, or the
desirability of, providing such a conductive adhesive. In our
view, the examiner’s proposed modification amounts to an
impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed
invention. Without having the benefit of appellants’
disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
provided a conductive adhesive between Fujimoto’s composite
bumps and the substrate pads to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 12 based on the combination of Fujimoto, Saito
(JP4-30532), or in the alternative Fujimoto, Saito (JP4-
6841) and Saito (JP4-30532).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 16 and 17
Based on the Combination of Fujimoto and Onozaki, or in the
Alternative, the Combination of Fujimoto,
Saito (JP4-6841) and Onozaki
Claims 16 and 17, which depend from independent claim 7,
further recite "wherein said bonding is provided by
thermocompression bonding," and "wherein said bonding is
provided by application of heat energy," respectively.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007