Appeal No. 2003-1233
Application No. 09/420,817
have recognized that the wire bonding techniques could have been used in Egawa’s
semiconductor package. In an alternative embodiment Egawa discloses wire bonding of
the top layer of a chip to a central layer. (See figure 1(b)). A person having ordinary skill
in the art would have also recognized that the wire bonding could have occurred through
the central aperture described in figure 3. (Note Bertin figure 8). It is well settled that the
prior art references stand for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences
one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom,
see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Appellant argue that Egawa’s use of a flip chip design is a teaching away from
using wire bonding. (Brief, pp. 5-6). We disagree. The central layer of Egawa’s
semiconductor package contains connection points on both sides. (See figure 3, points 18
and 32). A person of ordinary skill in the are would have recognized that if the circuitry
of the central layer, from the side not facing the first chip, were needed on the first chip
wire bonding would have been a suitable connection method.
Appellant argues that Egawa filled the space between the chips 11, 17 and the
substrate 30 with a resin 33 for encapsulation and that the hole 31 is not suitable for wire
connection. (Brief, p. 6). We disagree. Egawa discloses that the use of wire bonding and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007