Appeal No. 2000-0811
Application 08/964,734
B. The Obviousness Rejection
With respect to claims 7, 9 and 10, the appellants argue
that relative to the features of independent claim 1, Hayes does
not cure the deficiencies of Trabucco ‘737. However, as is
discussed in connection with the rejection of independent claim
1, there is no deficiency in Trabucco ‘737. The appellants
further argue by merely concluding that the prior art does not
teach or suggest the feature added (1) by claim 7 about affixing
an adhesive film to the second substrate, (2) by claim 9, about
placing a plurality of solder members on a plurality of portions
of an adhesive film, and (3) by claim 10, about applying light
source to the adhesive film to cause the adhesive film to lose at
least a portion of its adhesive properties.
The examiner specifically relied on Hayes for the additional
features of claims 7 and 9. With respect to claims 7 and 9, the
examiner determined that Hayes discloses affixing an adhesive
film to a second substrate and using it to secure a pattern of
solder balls. Our review of Hayes at a glance reveals adhesive
layer 26. In column 5, lines 48-51, Hayes states: (If desired,
an adhesive layer 26 may be placed on the lower surface 28 and/or
the upper surface 30 of the array membrane 22 as shown in FIG.
3.)” Also, in column 6, lines 34-37, Hayes indicates that the
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007