Appeal No. 1998-3038
Application No. 08/602,503
Claims 30 through 32 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on
Kuroda, Kuranaga, Fogal, Rostoker and Takiar.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 8),
the brief (paper number 12) and the answer (paper number 13) for
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 19, 21
through 23 and 25 through 34.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s assertions
(final rejection, page 2) that Kuroda discloses “mounting of a
chip 1, Fig. 1, onto a substrate 4 by flip chip bonding pads 4-
1,” bonding a second chip 2 “to the first chip in a back to back
fashion using a bonding agent 1-1,” and connecting the second
chip to the substrate via bonding wires 2-2 in a multi-die
assembly. The examiner acknowledges (final rejection, page 2)
that Kuroda does not “specifically illustrate discrete
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007