Appeal No. 2001-0687
Application No. 09/080,070
though the coating material is not specified as being palladium.
The examiner then relies on Hembree for a teaching of coating
balls of a ball grid array with palladium after securing the
balls to the lead frame, at column 5, lines 20-25. The examiner
cites Manteghi, at column 3, lines 45-48, for the teaching of
applying a palladium coating to the leads. The examiner combines
these teachings to conclude that the instant claimed subject
matter would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 since it would have been obvious “to coat the balls and
leads as taught by the process of Tsuji . . . with palladium as
taught by Manteghi and Hembree in order to improve the
conductivity" (answer, page 3).
It does appear to us that the skilled artisan, having the
teachings of (1) securing the balls to the leads and then coating
the balls with palladium and (2) coating the leads with
palladium, would clearly have been led to coat both the leads and
the balls with palladium after securing the balls to the package
for the advantages taught by the references.
Appellants argue (reply brief, pages 1 and 2) that the
references do not suggest that after the balls are secured to the
leads, both the balls and the leads are coated with palladium,
“this being a single step,” and that while Hambree is the only
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007