Ex parte MILES et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-3048                                                        
          Application 08/502,993                                                      

          that Shen’s disclosed structure is without “die attach”                     
          adhesive between the die and the substrate, as the appellants               
          have claimed.  No explanation has been provided by the                      
          examiner as to how the die element (80) in Shen is attached to              
          the first or second printed circuit boards.                                 
               The appellants’ claims also call for:                                  
                    a plastic resin encapsulating the semiconductor                   
               die and providing a compressive force to secure the                    
               semiconductor die in direct and intimate contact                       
               with the printed circuit substrate die mounting                        
               area, the plastic resin further encapsulating the at                   
               least one wirebond and covering portions of the                        
               printed circuit substrate first side.                                  
               The appellants argue that if anything, the die (80) in                 
          Shen is secured by an adhesive force provided via the epoxy                 
          resin filling the bore hole 61, which is not a compressive                  
          force as is claimed by the appellants.  The appellants further              
          note that a compressive force would tend to dislodge Shen’s                 
          die which has no support on its bottom surface.  The examiner               
          has not provided any satisfactory explanation or response to                
          these valid points.  In that regard, the examiner states                    
          (answer at 4-5):                                                            
               A recitation with respect to the manner in which a                     
               claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does                      
               not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior                   
               art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural                        
                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007