Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
X. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 52, 54-56, 62, and
64-66 as being obvious over Usui
We consider claim 52 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 9 of the answer. The examiner’s basic position is that Usui
teaches that the epoxy resin can be used to encapsulate IC chips
and refers to column 1, which refers to both ceramic and organic
substrates. The examiner recognizes that the disclosed method
does not specifically teach the step of reflowing solder joints,
but the examiner states that, as acknowledged by appellant on
page 2 of the specification, this is a conventional step in the
process of attaching chips to substrates, and therefore the
skilled artisan would have readily recognized the need for such a
step rendering the claimed method obvious.
Appellant’s rebuttal for this rejection is set forth on page
10 of the brief. Appellant does not specifically address the
obviousness rejection regarding the method claim 52. Appellant
does not dispute the examiner’s notice that reflowing solder
joints is a conventional step in the process of attaching chips
to substrates. As such, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 52, 54-56, 62, 64-66 as being obvious over Usui.
XI. The rejection of claims 42, 44 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hanyu
We consider claim 42 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 9 of the answer. The examiner makes findings regarding the
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007