Appeal No. 2002-0579 Page 9
Application No. 09/324,780
module of Oppermann, as information to be transmitted off the chip would not have
separately identifiable paths” (brief, page 20). While this may be true, appellant’s
argument is not directed to the modification which we understand to have been
proposed by the examiner, namely, using conductive epoxy as the “connecting material
95.” Appellant’s expressed concerns with regard to destruction of separately
identifiable paths do not apply to such use of a conductive epoxy material. We perceive
no error in the examiner’s proposed combination of Oppermann and Johnson and, thus,
shall sustain the rejection of claim 13.
Clam 14
Turning finally to the rejection of claim 14, which depends from claim 7 and
further recites that the external terminal is a solder ball, the examiner’s position appears
to be that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to use a solder ball in fabricating the external bonding bumps 96 of
Oppermann’s chip module, in light of the teaching by Johnson that solder balls were
well known at the time of appellant’s invention for forming electrical terminals (column 1,
line 44; column 4, lines 7-8). Appellant (brief, pages 21-22) argues that Johnson does
not disclose or suggest using the solder balls as external terminals as recited in claim
14 and, further, that the use of a solder ball in forming the external bonding bumps 96
of Oppermann would not permit filling of both the recess 91 and the orifice 90 in one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007