Appeal No. 2002-0579 Page 5
Application No. 09/324,780
the Cu pattern 25 to bond the chip pad 22 to the chip attaching portion and not for an
external terminal connection, as in the case of the opening in the film 24 for the external
terminal attaching portion 27. Against this background, one skilled in the
semiconductor packaging art would understand the “filling material such as an epoxy
resin” (specification, page 8) disclosed in appellant’s specification to be an electrically
insulating or non-conductive material.
The prior art rejections
Claims 1-6 and 20
Appellant has not offered any argument as to the patentability of these claims
over the prior art applied by the examiner, choosing instead to argue that the
amendment after final (Paper No. 12), which was refused entry by the examiner and
which proposed to cancel claim 1 and amend claims 2-6 and 20 to depend from claim
24, should be entered (brief, pages 22-23). The refusal of an examiner to enter an
amendment after final rejection of claims is a matter of discretion and is not reviewable
by the Board of Appeals. Rather, such an issue should be addressed by a petition
under 37 CFR § 1.181 to the Commissioner, as set forth in 37 CFR § 1.127. See also
In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967); In re Hengehold,
440 F.2d 1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971). In the absence of any
argument as to why claims 1, 2, 4 and 20 are not anticipated by Oppermann, why
claims 5 and 6 are not unpatentable over Oppermann or why claim 3 is not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007