Appeal No. 2004-2144
Application No. 09/483,712
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2002); In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Lee et al. (Lee) 5,894,107 Apr. 13, 1999
Farnworth 6,147,413 Nov. 14, 2000
(filed Aug. 7, 1997)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Farnworth in view of Lee (Answer, page 3).
We affirm the examiner’s rejection on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Farnworth discloses a chip scale
package comprising a semiconductor die (1004) having an active
surface, a plurality of bond pads (1002), with the lower surface
of a dielectric element (1006) attached to a portion of the
active surface of the die (Answer, page 4). The examiner also
finds that the lower surface of a plurality of conductive traces
(1016) is attached to the upper surface of the dielectric element
(1006), with conductive bond members connecting each conductive
trace to the bond pads (id.). The examiner further finds that
carrier bonds (1032) are disposed on an upper surface of the
conductive trace and an encapsulating material (1018) covers
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007