Appeal No. 1999-2403
Application 08/576,185
to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph. In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969, 169 USPQ
795, 796 (CCPA 1971). The question is not whether an added word
was the word used in the specification as filed, but whether
there is support in the specification for the employment of the
word in the claims, that is, whether the concept is present in
the original disclosure. See
In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ 311, 336 (CCPA
1973).
Following this guidance, it is readily apparent to us that
appellants had an adequate basis within the original disclosure
to have later claimed the subject matter of claims 18-21.
Appellants’ prior art discussion at pages 1 and 2 of the
specification as filed indicates that it was known in the art for
implementing controlled collapse chip connection (C4)
semiconductor interconnection structures to have used a fixture
including a so-called depositor within which solder had been
placed subject to being reflowed. This depositor permitted the
fixture apparatus of the prior art to place solder balls on a
structure to receive them. It is thus apparent that upon the
application of the proper reflow temperature the depositor
released the solder within its cavities in order to form the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007