Appeal No. 1999-2570
Application No. 08/923,218
a reduced thickness portion which is etched to form bumps, but these bumps are for better
thermocompression bonding of bumps to bond pads in a taped automated bonding
system. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the
combination of Murakami and Burns does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness concerning the stress relief portion of the lead. (See brief at page 12.) We
agree with appellants. The examiner maintains that the particle size and capacitance
would have motivated the use of a stress relief portion of the lead. (See answer at pages
4-5.) We find that the examiner’s analysis is merely speculation and analysis in light of
appellants’ disclosure of the problem and solution. Therefore, we are not persuaded by
the examiner’s argument with respect to the teachings of Murakami concerning stress
relief. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 3, 31, and 33
and their dependent claims which all contain similar limitations.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007