Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative independent claim 1,
Appellants’ arguments in response to the obviousness rejection
initially assert that the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness since all of the claimed
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. Appellants contend (Brief, page 6) that, unlike
Goossen in which no air space is formed in the fabrication
process, claim 1 requires the natural formation of an air space
between the connection bumps and the passivation layer. In a
related argument (id., at 6-7), Appellants assert that, unlike
the present invention, Goossen requires squeezing and heating
steps to cure the underfill material.
After careful review of the applied prior art references in
light of the arguments of record, however, we are in general
agreement with the Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer.
Our interpretation of the disclosure of Goossen coincides with
that of the Examiner, i.e., an air gap is clearly illustrated
between the solder bump 61 and the passivation layer 46 in
Goossen’s Figure 4. Further, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, page 8), Appellants’ arguments with regard to the
-6–6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007