Appeal No. 2003-0241
Application No. 09/271,615
Appealed claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15-23 and 25-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chittipeddi.
Claims 3, 14 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chittipeddi further in view of Lin.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with appellants that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections.
The examiner appreciates that Chittipeddi fails to teach the
claimed step of forming a bonding pad that is electrically
connected to the cushioning, metal layer. Although the examiner
concludes that such would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, the examiner incorrectly states that "[t]he
issue is whether or not it would be obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, with the teachings of Chittipeddi and the prior
art, to form a [sic] simple uninsulated vias through the
electrically neutral metal cushion layer, or employ extra
expensive and difficult processing steps to deliberately insulate
the vias" (sentence bridging pages 7 and 8 of Answer). However,
the issue is not whether it would have been obvious to form vias
through the metal cushion layer, as stated by the examiner, but,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007