Appeal No. 2002-1183
Application 08/975,549
[i]n the Littlebury reference, the second
functionality test is performed after the die has been
packaged . . . . In contrast, as discussed on page 6
of the Appeal Brief, each of the [independent] claims
[28 through 32] recites that the functional testing is
performed on “segmented” or “singulated” die, i.e., die
that has been cut from the wafer but not yet packaged.
Furthermore, some claims, such as claims 28-31,
specifically state that the die is packaged subsequent
to such testing. Thus, each of the claims recites that
the die is functionally [sic, functionality] tested in
“segmented’ or “singulated” form, while the Littlebury
reference teaches that the die is functionally tested
in “wafer” form and in “packaged” form. A clearer
distinction between claimed subject matter and a cited
reference is difficult to imagine [reply brief, page
8].
Notwithstanding the appellants’ argument, the examiner’s
position here is well founded. The specification in the instant
application discusses two types of “packaging.” The first
involves the various lead frame attaching, wire bonding, coating,
encapsulating, and finishing procedures depicted as steps 16
through 40 in the prior art process shown in Figure 1, but not in
the appellants’ inventive process shown in Figure 2, and the
second involves the wrapping, boxing, etc., procedures for
shipping depicted as step 60 of the prior art process shown in
Figure 1 and step 86 of the appellants’ inventive process shown
in Figure 2. As clearly explained in the specification (see, for
example, pages 1 through 8), the appellants’ inventive process
eliminates packaging of the first type to produce so-called bare
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007