Appeal No. 2000-0421
Application 08/912,429
responds that Bond [column 7, lines 45-49] teaches that the
thermal conductor can also be used as an electrical conductor
[answer, pages 11-12]. Appellants respond that a ground path is
not a signal path [reply brief, page 3].
We will also sustain this rejection. We agree with the
examiner that the solder balls 80' located under thermal
conductor 72 also function as second electrical interconnections
underlying a shadow region of the integrated circuit chip as
pointed out by the examiner. The argument that a ground path is
not a signal path is not understood as noted above. Accordingly,
Bond clearly anticipates the invention recited in claims 1, 2, 5,
6, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
We now consider the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007