Appeal No. 2004-2144
Application No. 09/483,712
bonds in the form of wires in the configuration of Farnworth for
the benefits taught by Lee, namely to provide the advantage of
smaller packages, better electrical performance and higher
package density (Answer, page 5). We agree.
Appellants argue that the fact that bond wires such as those
taught by Lee are known in the art does not mean that bond wires
may be incorporated into the structure disclosed by Farnworth
(Brief, page 6). Appellants argue that, due to the differences
in structure and scale between the repattern traces of Farnworth
and the wires of Lee, there is no support for the examiner’s
proposed modification (Brief, page 7). Appellants further argue
that adding bond wires to the repattern structure of Farnworth
would require an enlarged packaged size, would decrease
electrical performance, and complicate the manufacturing process
(Brief, pages 7-8; Reply Brief, pages 3-4). Appellants state
that the negative impact of adding bond wires to the flip chip
package in Farnworth is based on structural aspects of bond wires
“which are widely documented and well known to those of ordinary
skill in the art.” Reply Brief, page 3.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The arguments of
appellants’ attorney cannot take the place of evidence lacking in
the record. See In re Scarborough, 500 F.2d 560, 566, 182 USPQ
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007