Appeal No. 2001-1421
Application No. 09/128,226
claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are directed to the embodiment in which a
second underfilling process is performed after a flip-chip step
which in turn is performed after a first underfilling process.
While we agree with the Examiner that Goossen discloses the
conventionality of performing underfilling after a flip-chip
operation, we find no basis for the conclusion that the skilled
artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to perform
this after flip-chip underfilling process in combination with a
underfilling step performed before the flip-chip operation as
claimed. The Examiner must not only make requisite findings,
based on the evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the
asserted conclusion. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61
USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Accordingly, since all of
the claimed limitations are not taught or suggested by the
applied prior art references, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 is not sustained.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of the appealed claims, we have sustained the
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 14, and 15 , but have not
sustained the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13. Therefore,
-9–9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007