Appeal No. 2004-0710
Application No. 09/726,260
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the answer.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s factual
determination that Ball discloses an electronic circuit package
comprising an integrated circuit element having first and second
surfaces, a plurality of first electrically conducting leads
which extend under the second surface of the circuit element, a
plurality of second electrically conducting leads which do not
extend under the second surface of the circuit element, a bonding
material between the second surface of the circuit element and
the first conducting leads which extend under the second surface
of the circuit element, wherein the bonding material is a thermal
conductor and electrically non-conductive, and the claimed
electrical connections between input/output pads on the first
surface of the circuit element and the first and second
electrically conducting leads. The principal arguments advanced
by appellants is that Ball describes a circuit package comprising
two integrated circuit elements or die, while the appealed claims
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007