Ex Parte Tandy - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2003-0175                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/769,976                                                                               


              what these different characteristics are.2                                                               
                     Appellant also argues that Kano fails to teach that the gold layer 5 of his                       
              structure must be sufficiently low to reduce the likelihood of solder ball joint                         
              embrittlement.  Appeal brief, page 9.   This argument is not, however, relevant to claim                 
              31, since such limitation is not present in the claim.3  Accordingly, the rejection of claims            
              31, 32 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kano is affirmed.                               
                     2.  Rejection of claims 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kano                     
              in view of Calviello.                                                                                    
                     The examiner concedes that Kano is silent with respect to the thickness of the                    
              first and second gold coatings.  Examiner’s answer, page 6.  However, the examiner                       
              maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of             
              the invention to have used the gold coating thicknesses of Calviello in Kano’s structure                 
              in order to have a thickness of gold suitable for a semiconductor device.  Id.  Calviello                
              teaches, in particular, forming a gold coating that is about 0.1-0.25 microns in                         
              thickness.  Id.  (citing Calviello, column 11, lines 10 and 11).                                         
                     Appellant’s argument in response to this ground of rejection again focuses on his                 

                     2 We have conducted our own review of the prior art and have been unable to locate any patents    
              which utilize the specific terms “solder ball bond pads” or “wire bond bond pads” other than U.S. Patent 
              No. 6,403,457 which issued June 11, 2002 from U.S. Serial No. 09/382,930, the parent of the present      
              application.                                                                                             
                     3 This limitation is present in claim 32.  However, appellant has indicated that the claims stand or
              fall together for purposes of the appeal as to this ground of rejection.  Appeal brief, page 5; 37 CFR § 
              1.192(c)(7).  Thus, we have elected to focus on claim 31, the broadest claim, in considering this appeal.
              In any event we note that adjustment of the thickness of the gold layer would appear to be nothing more  
              than a result effective variable.                                                                        
                                                          6                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007