Appeal No. 2004-0651
Application No. 09/898,082
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The examiner, at pages 3 et seq. of the answer, sets forth
the correspondence between the disclosure of Kawai and the
instant claimed elements.
While appellant does not disagree with every part of the
examiner’s correspondence, appellant does argue, with regard to
claim 1, that Kawai differs therefrom in that the Cu material
which fills holes 4 in Kawai does not have a dishing portion,
i.e., no concave shaped surface. Further, appellant argues,
Kawai’s Sn bonding members 5 and metal wirings 2 in Figure 12 (c)
also have no concave dishing portions on respective surfaces
thereof.
While the examiner does not contend that Kawai does disclose
concave dishing portions, the examiner does contend that
the so-called concave shaped surface defining a dishing
portion only exists in the intermediate step of the
bonding process as shown in figure 3 of the instant
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007