Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103
rejection is well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-1472, 223 USPQ 785,
787-788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We affirm primarily for the reasons advanced by the Examiner
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner has found that Egawa discloses a semiconductor package, figure 3,
that differs from the subject matter of claim 24 in that the first chip is not wire bonded to
the top side of the laminate layer. According to the Examiner, Bertin discloses a
semiconductor package, figure 8, that contains a chip that is wire bonded to a laminate
layer for electrical coupling. The Examiner also found Egawa and Bertin were from the
same field of endeavor. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use wire bonding techniques for electrically
connecting the first chip to the laminate layer of Egawa. (Answer, p. 4).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection is based on improper hindsight and
there is no motivation or suggestion to modify Egawa with Bertin. (Brief, p. 5). We are
not convinced by Appellant’s argument. A person having ordinary skill in the art would
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007