Appeal No. 2001-1115
Application No. 08/946,693
A copy of claim 12 is set forth below, with text in bold
for emphasis only:
12. Integrated circuit device comprising:
a. an integrated circuit (IC) chip,
b. a series of IC solder bonding sites on said integrated
circuit chip,
c. at least one integrated circuit device contact located
between each of said series of IC solder bonding sites and the
next in said series of IC solder sites,
d. an interconnection substrate (IS) overlying at least said
series of IC solder bonding sites, and attached to said
integrated circuit chip,
e. a series of IS solder bonding sites on said interconnection
substrate, said IS solder bonding sites aligned with said series
of IC solder bonding sites,
f. a series of solder interconnections between said series of IC
solder bonding sites and said series of IS solder bonding sites,
and
g. an electrical connection comprising a printed circuit
conductor exclusively interconnecting said series of IS solder
bonding sites.
Claims 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph (enablement).2
Claims 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Marcantonio in view of Rostoker.
Claims 12 through 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
through 21 are the appealed claims. We use the Substitute Brief in this
decision.
2 On page 6 of the brief, appellants state “apparently claims 10-21 was
intended” in this rejection. However, our review of the final Office action
of Paper No. 11 indicates that the examiner rejected only claims 10-12 in
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007