Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
Kanakarajan does not disclose that polyamic acid polyimide is
to be used in composite bumps. 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 polyimide for
Fujimoto’s polymer body to arrive at the claimed invention.
It is our opinion that the examiner’s determination of
obviousness is based on impermissible hindsight analysis.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 30 based on the combination of Fujimoto, Onozaki and
Kanakarajan, or in the alternative the combination of
Fujimoto, Saito (JP4-6841), Onozaki and Kanakarajan.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 21
through 24 and 31 through 33
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 21 through 24
Based on the Combination of Fujimoto and Chun, or in the
Alternative, the Combination of Fujimoto,
Saito (JP4-6841) and Chun
Claim 21 and its dependent claims 22 through 24 are
directed to a method of forming a bonded structure, comprising
inter alia "bonding said structure by means of a tape
automated bonding process." Fujimoto and Saito (JP4-6841),
taken alone or in combination, do not teach a tape automated
38
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007