Appeal No. 1999-0591
Application 08/581,905
removing the piece of tape from the fixture after the
performing of said operations on said semiconductor die in said
fixture.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Phelps, Jr. et al. (Phelps) 4,796,078 Jan. 03, 1989
Shindo et al. (Shindo) 5,048,179 Sep. 17, 1991
Kinsman et al. (Kinsman) 5,336,649 Aug. 09, 1994
Tsukamoto et al. (Tsukamoto) 5,406,459 Apr. 11, 1995
Wood et al. (Wood) 5,440,240 Aug. 08, 1995
Childers et al. (Childers) 5,442,386 Aug. 15, 1995
The admitted prior art of appellants’ specification.
The following rejections are before us on appeal:
1. Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 15-21, 23-28, 30, 32, 38, 39 and 55-
57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Kinsman and the admitted prior art.
2. Claims 6 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kinsman and the
admitted prior art in view of Wood.
3. Claim 10-12 and 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kinsman and the
admitted prior art in view of Childers.
4. Claims 8 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Kinsman and the
admitted prior art in view of Shindo.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007