Appeal No. 2001-1449 Page 8
Application No. 08/791,177
We agree with the examiner for the reasons given in the answer. The fact that
Takiar recognizes that TAB connections could be used although they are complex and
expensive teaches the obviousness of TAB connections within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 23, 27 and 31.
We now consider the rejection with respect to claim 32. Appellants argue that
neither Takiar nor Tsubouchi teaches the direct attachment of a lead finger of an LOC-
configured lead frame to a bond pad on a semiconductor die [brief, pages 22-23]. The
examiner responds that Takiar teaches that TAB connections are conventional. The
examiner notes that a TAB connection would meet the recitations of claim 32 [answer,
page 7]. Appellants respond that the examiner has not considered all the limitations of
claim 32. Specifically, appellants argue that a TAB connection is not a lead finger of a
leadframe that extends over a surface of a patch die and that is directly attached to a
bond pad on the face surface of the patch die [reply brief, pages 8-9].
We agree with appellants for reasons given in the reply brief. The fact that
Takiar recognizes that TAB connections could be used does not teach or suggest the
obviousness of extending and attaching the lead finger as claimed. The examiner has
not indicated where the specific recitations of claim 32 are found in the applied prior art.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 32.
We now consider the rejection with respect to claims 33 and 34 which stand or
fall together [brief, page 13]. Appellants argue that the examiner has provided no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007