Appeal No. 1998-0786
Application No. 08/464,118
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Hatada, Breen, Fujiwara, Pallie, Bentov and
Celling. See Answer in its entirety. According to the
examiner, Hatada essentially shows the claimed process except
for the claimed adhesive composition and its application on a
wafer prior to cutting it into chips. Id. The examiner then
relies on the disclosures of Fujiwara, Pallie, Bentov and
Celling to establish obviousness of using the claimed adhesive
composition and the disclosure of Breen to establish
obviousness of applying the claimed adhesive composition on
the wafer prior to cutting it into chips. See Answer, pages
6-9. In addition, the examiner takes the position that “these
metal projections/bumps of [Hatada] are held/seen to
correspond/be essentially identical to the “deformable
projecting electrodes” recited/envisioned for use by
appellants...” See Answer, page 8.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, “the examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007