Appeal No. 2002-0579 Page 4
Application No. 09/324,780
in claim 24. However, the test for determining compliance with the written description
requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as originally filed reasonably
conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claim language. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983). For the reasons which follow, we are
satisfied that, despite the lack of literal support in the specification for the claim
language “non-conductive filling material,” the disclosure of the application as originally
filed reasonably conveys to one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor packaging art that
the epoxy resin filling material 31 is non-conductive. Accordingly, we shall not sustain
the rejection.
First, in discussing the instant invention, appellant’s specification discloses on
page 5 “a filling material for sealing the first openings” (emphasis ours). From our
perspective, one skilled in the semiconductor packaging art would understand the term
“sealing” in this context to mean sealing or insulating from electrical conduction and
would thus infer that the disclosed filling material is non-conductive. Moreover, it is
apparent from the disclosure of the fabrication process (see especially page 8, lines 16-
25, and Figures 6C and 6D) that the space A formed by the opening in the polyimide
film 24 is necessary to provide access for a bond tool to the chip attaching portion 26 of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007