Appeal No. 1999-0591
Application 08/581,905
examiner acknowledges that Kinsman does not teach the step of
cutting the tape, the steps of cleaning the fixture and removing
the tape, and the step of heating the fixture to a second
temperature after removal of the die [answer, pages 4-6]. The
examiner finds that each of these steps is conventional or would
have inherently formed a part of the process in Kinsman.
Finally, the examiner finds that adding these conventional steps
to the process taught by Kinsman would have been obvious to the
artisan.
Appellants argue that neither Kinsman nor the admitted
prior art teaches or suggests the use of a piece of tape to
retain the semiconductor die in the test fixture. They assert
that Kinsman and the admitted prior art teach a gel pack which
uses a surface static charge to adhere the die to the fixture or
a “tape type” adhesive which is sprayed on the fixture and is not
a piece of tape. Appellants further argue that the examiner has
improperly taken official notice of facts which are outside the
record. Specifically, appellants argue that the fact that
official notice is taken of a piece of tape does not render
obvious the cutting of the tape, the adhesive coating on the
tape, and the use of the tape in performing operations or the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007