Appeal No. 1998-2907
Application No. 08/471,748
3, 9 through 14, 16 through 20, 22, 24, 27, and 29 through 35,
because Roylance discloses using anodic bonding specifically
to avoid the use of an adhesive. (The adhesive referenced by
the examiner fills the region between the two glass covers and
around the leads, but does not connect the cover to the die.)
Roylance further teaches away from using plastic, as required
by claims 1 through 8, 10 through 12, 30 through 36, and 38,
because the glass layers are disclosed as taking the place of
the TO-5 or dual-in-line package normally used for IC's.
Further, Greiff adds nothing to overcome either deficiency.
Therefore, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 14, 16 through 20, 22, 24, 27, 29 through 36,
and 38.
Regarding the rejection of claim 15 and the claims
dependent therefrom, claims 39 through 41, the examiner states
(Answer, pages 4-5) that Greiff shows a silicon cover with
metal layers of various conductive materials, wherein the
"layers can be connected to voltage wires on the chip." The
examiner continues that it would have been obvious "to have
used the cover structure of Greiff et al with the devices of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007