Appeal No. 2002-1183
Application 08/975,549
The stored functional test data is then used to remove
the functional failures which were detected at the
previous functional test. Good devices are then
transferred into carrier sleeves or boxes which
preferably are the same container which is shipped to
the customer [column 2, line 34, through column 5, line
29].
As framed by the appellants, the dispositive issue in the
appeal is whether Littlebury responds to the limitations in
independent claims 28 through 32 requiring functionality testing
after die segmentation/singulation and before die packaging.
Claim 28, reproduced above, sets forth the steps of “segmenting”
a plurality of die from a wafer, “performing electrical
functionality testing” of each of the segmented die to identify
satisfactorily nondefective die, and “packaging” the
satisfactorily nondefective die. Claims 29 through 31 contain
comparable limitations, as does claim 32 albeit without a
packaging step. The appellants submit that Littlebury “teaches
that die are functionally tested on a wafer prior to being
singulated and packaged” (main brief, page 5) and “does not
provide any teaching or suggestion whatsoever that would lead one
skilled in the art to perform electrical functionality testing
after segmentation of the die” (main brief, pages 5 and 6).
In rejecting the appealed claims as being unpatentable over
Littlebury, the examiner takes two approaches to this issue.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007