Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
squeezing and heating operations during the underfill process are
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 since any such
squeezing and heating underfill curing steps are not precluded by
the language of the claim.
Further, we find to be unpersuasive Appellants’ argument
(Brief, page 7) which attacks the Examiner’s establishment of
proper motivation for the proposed combination of references. We
find no convincing arguments from Appellants that would convince
us of any error in the Examiner’s proposed combination of Goossen
and Harper. In our view, as also asserted by the Examiner
(Answer, pages 8 and 9), Goossen’s suggestion of application of
the described underfill process to multiple IC packages and
Harper’s teaching of complete wafer coverage of solder bumps
before die cutting would suggest to the skilled artisan the
obviousness of applying an underfill process such as disclosed by
Goossen to a plurality of dies before the die-cutting process.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim
1, as well as claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 14 which fall with claim 1,
is sustained.
-7–7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007