Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
the art would not have substituted Tsukagoshi’s aluminum layer
9 of very fine particles 8 for Fujimoto’s bump conductive
layer 25.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 25 based on the combination of Fujimoto and
Tsukagoshi, or in the alternative based on the combination of
Fujimoto, Saito (JP4-6841) and Tsukagoshi.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 8, 13, 26 and 29
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 8 Based on
the Combination of Fujimoto and Saito (JP4-6841)
In interpreting claim 8, it is our view that the
composite bumps must be provided on the substrate pads before
the step of bringing together the substrate and the integrated
circuit element. We agree with the appellants’ argument that
the "composite bumps are formed on the substrate before the
bond is formed and not the integrated circuit element, as in
Fujimoto and Saito (JP 4-6841)" (Brief, page 18). The
differences between the device resulting from the applied
prior art and the claimed invention still exist. As such, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007