Appeal No. 2000-2143 Page 5
Application No. 08/743,405
The examiner has argued that the appellants have a burden of
establishing that the additional metallurgy in the Bhatia
structure is excluded from the claims by the phrase “consisting
essentially of.” In our view, the appellants have satisfied
their burden by showing that the claimed multilayer structure
has a top surface which excludes the additional metallurgy
disclosed in Bhatia. See In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74,
143 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1964).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 5 dependent therefrom.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 5
and 16 to 20 as being unpatentable over Mohsen in view of Bhatia.
In support of this rejection, the examiner states:
Mohsen discloses an interconnect substrate
having all of the features claimed except for
the explicit disclosure of the pads being C4
chip connection pads and metal strip repair
lines are defined by testing or metal strip
repair lines are formed by lithography . . .
However, as shown by Bhatia, the use of C4
pad is well known in the art and it would
have been within the level of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the Mohsen by employing
any known pads including C4 pads as desired.
Further, presence of process limitations in
product claims, which product does not
otherwise patentably distinguish over prior
art, cannot impart patentability to that
product. [answer at page 4]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007