Appeal No. 2002-0579 Page 7
Application No. 09/324,780
and 21-23 do not require that the “filling material that covers the first regions over the
attached corresponding chip pads” be non-conductive. It is well established that
limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982). Moreover, limitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26
USPQ2d 1057, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1993) citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Appellant’s sole argument as to why claims 7, 8, 10 and 21-23 are not
anticipated by Oppermann and claims 11 and 12 are not unpatentable over Oppermann
is that Oppermann fails to disclose a filling material which is non-conductive that covers
the first regions. It should be apparent from the above discussion that this argument is
not commensurate with the scope of claims 7, 8, 10-12 and 21-23 and thus does not
persuade us of any error in the examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 8, 10 and 21-23 as
being anticipated by Oppermann and claims 11 and 12 as being unpatentable over
Oppermann. These rejections are thus sustained. With respect to the combination of
Oppermann and Williams, appellant’s only argument (brief, page 18) is that Williams
fails to cure the perceived deficiencies (i.e., failure to disclose non-conductive filling
material that covers the first regions) of Oppermann. In that claim 9 does not require a
non-conductive filling material, as discussed above, this argument is not persuasive of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007