Appeal No. 1998-3048
Application 08/502,993
limitations. Therefore, from Appellant’s
admissions, it appears that the “adhesive force” of
Shen is equivalent with the “compressive force” in
the claim.
The examiner’s stated position is without merit. The
issue here does not concern a manner of use of a claimed
apparatus and that of a prior art device having the same
structure, but structural differences between the claimed
apparatus and the prior art device. In the claimed invention,
the die has to be secured to the printed circuit substrate by
way of a compressive force stemming from an encapsulating
epoxy resin. That limitation is not met by having an adhesive
between the die and the substrate. Moreover, the preamble of
claim 1 specifies that the package has no die attach adhesive,
and the body of independent claim 1 specifies a die “lying
directly on the substrate with no die adhesive between the die
and the substrate” (Emphasis added). At least in the context
of the appellants’ claims, the examiner erred in finding that
a compressive force and an adhesive force are equivalents.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-5
cannot be sustained. We express no opinion on any other
argument presented by the appellants in their brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007