Appeal No. 2000-0811
Application 08/964,734
adhesive layer is to attach and ensure that the solder or metal
balls 86 will not fall out of apertures 24 during later handling
of the array 20. Evidently, the examiner’s position has some
plausible basis in the record and cannot be dismissed out of
hand. The appellants, however, fail to explain why Hayes’
adhesive layer 26 is inapplicable or how its combination with the
teachings of Trabucco ‘737 is erroneous or improper.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 9.
Claim 10 depends from claim 7. With respect to claim 10,
however, the examiner has not pointed to any disclosure either in
Trabucco ‘737 or Hayes which meets the added feature of “applying
a light source to the adhesive film to cause said adhesive film
to lose at least a portion of its adhesive properties.” Instead,
in pages 4-5 of paper No. 6, the examiner states:
Light sensitive adhesive film is used in many
semiconductor applications in which a temporary
securement is desired, and would have been an obvious
embodiment to Trabucco.
The examiner does not cite to any prior art reference to support
the above-quoted determination. Furthermore, the appellants
evidently dispute the examiner’s finding. In this circumstance,
it is incumbent upon the examiner to locate appropriate prior art
to support its unsubstantiated conclusion. That, however, the
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007