Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
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 integrated circuit pads.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 13 based on the combination of Fujimoto, Saito (JP4-
6841) and Saito (JP4-30532).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 26 Based on
the Combination of Fujimoto and Tsukagoshi, or in the
Alternative, the Combination Fujimoto,
Saito (JP4-6841) and Tsukagoshi
Claim 26, which depends from claim 8, further recites
inter alia, "wherein said conductive metal coating consists of
aluminum." Fujimoto and Saito (JP4-6841), taken alone or in
combination, do not teach or suggest that the composite bumps
are provided on the substrate pads before the step of bringing
together the substrate and the integrated circuit element as
called for in claim 8. Tsukagoshi does not cure such
deficiencies.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 26 based on the combination of Fujimoto and
Tsukagoshi, or
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007