Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 8 (the representative
claim for Appellants’ suggested grouping including claims 8-11
and 15)3, we also sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8,
and claims 9-11 and 15 which fall with claim 8. Appellants’
arguments with respect to representative claim 8 focus (Brief,
page 11) on the alleged lack of a teaching in either Goossen or
Harper of a second layer of solder bumps. A review of the
language of claim 8 reveals, however, that only first and second
bumps are required, not solder bumps. As pointed out by the
Examiner (Answer, page 7) Harper discloses (Figure 13) a
connection bump with multiple metal layers having an illustrated
polished face between the first and second layers.
Turning to a consideration of separately argued dependent
claims 4 and 12, and their dependent claims 5 and 13, we note
that while we found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with
respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3,
6-11, 14, and 15 discussed supra, we reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 4,
5, 12, and 13. As indicated by Appellants (Brief, page 12),
3 Dependent claim 13, because of its dependency on claim 12, should
properly be included in Appellants’ suggested grouping with claim 12.
-8–8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007