Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
set forth in claims 68, 75, and 83. Further, with respect to
claims 71, 78, and 79, we find that King '241 provides a clear
teaching of the determination of which and how many tested die on
a wafer meet a threshold quality value with the subsequent
processing of this information to determine whether the product
wafer and test wafer are to be integrated as a complete package
(King ‘241, column 5, lines 10-30, Figure 1). Similarly, it is
our opinion that, as asserted by the Examiner (Answer, page 5),
the temperature cycling operation suggested by King '241 (column
3, lines 18-21) addresses the broadly recited temperature control
in claims 72 and 80.
Further, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection based on King '241 or King '405 in view of Moriya, we
note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be
unpersuasive as to the rejected claims discussed supra, we reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 58, 66, 67, 69,
70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, and 82. In our view, the temperature
cycling operation disclosed by King '241 does not teach or
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007