Appeal No. 2004-0133
Application No. 09/668,031
Appealed claims 1, 5, 7 and 12 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)as being anticipated by Lee. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9
and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Figure 2),
Karnezos and Varteresian.
Appellants submit at page 4 of the principal brief that with
regard to the § 102 rejection, “claims 1, 5 and 7 will be argued
as a group.” Accordingly, claims 5 and 7 stand or fall together
with claim 1.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7
and 12 under § 102 over Lee. We will sustain this rejection as
it pertains to article claims 1, 5 and 7. As acknowledged by
appellants, Figure 12 of Lee illustrates a die that has a gold-
chromium alloy layer on its back surface. We find that this
alloy layer meets the requirement of the claimed barrier layer
deposited on the second surface of the die. Also, the heat sink
80 of Figure 12 is joined to the back surface of the die through
a gold layer, which corresponds to appellants’ claimed metallic
layer. In its final form, the chip of Figure 12 comprises a heat
sink soldered to the back surface of a die wherein a barrier
layer is deposited on the second surface, and a metallic gold
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007