Appeal No. 2003-0175
Application No. 09/769,976
necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed structure. In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In the present case,
we find that the examiner has properly shifted the burden to appellant to show that the
claimed structure is different from that of Kano.
Appellant argues that the terms “solder ball bond pads” and “wire bond bond
pads” “are terms that are used in the art to distinguish bond pads having different
characteristics. Thus, these limitations are not merely statements of intended use.”
Appeal brief, page 9. In support of his contention, appellant relies on the teaching of
Trask et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,311,404 (“Trask”). Id.
We have reviewed Trask and cannot agree with appellant that the disclosure
supports appellant’s position that the aforementioned terms are known in the art as
distinguishing bond pads having different characteristics. In fact, appellant’s own
specification appears to support the examiner’s contention that these terms merely
recite an intended use for the bond pads. See specification, page 6, lines 17-20 (“the
bond pads 40 may be solder ball bond pads for coupling to solder balls (not shown).
The bond pads 42 may be wire bond bond pads for coupling to bonding wires 50.")
(emphasis added). Moreover, while appellant asserts that solder ball bond pads and
wire bond bond pads are known to have different characteristics, appellant fails to state
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007