Appeal No. 2001-2315
Application 09/145,106
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, claims are to be
interpreted as the terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893,
F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We note that independent claim 27 recites “a passivation
layer comprising plasma polymerized methylsiloxane extending over
portions of the die and the die carrier.” Furthermore, we note
that claim 36 also recites “a passivation layer comprising plasma
polymerized methylsiloxane extending over portions of the back
sides of the die and the die carrier.” Therefore all the claims
do require a passivation layer made of plasma polymerized
methylsiloxane which is applied over the die and the die carrier
in a packaged integrated circuit device.
Using that claim interpretation, we review the rejection of
claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See
also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing that
some objective teaching in the prior art or knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art suggests the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007