Appeal No. 2005-2073
Application No. 10/033,854
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
combine the teachings of Akram with the admitted prior art in
order to prevent the underfill material from spreading beyond the
sidewalls of the semiconductor device. Cha was cited by the
examiner to meet a claim limitation which is not present in
representative claim 1 [answer, pages 3-5].
Appellants argue that Akram teaches away from dispersing the
underfill material by capillary action because it teaches tipping
the assembly to get the underfill material to flow. Appellants
also argue that there is no teaching or suggestion within the
applied prior art to combine the references in a manner which
would render the claimed invention obviousness. Although Cha is
not necessary to reject representative claim 1, appellants argue
that Cha also does not teach dispersing the epoxy material by
capillary action and that Cha is from a non-analogous art [brief,
pages 6-11].
The examiner responds that Akram does teach that the
underfill material is dispersed by capillary action. The
examiner reiterates that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to combine the teachings of Akram with the method of the
admitted prior art in order to prevent the underfill material
from spreading beyond the sidewalls of the semiconductor device.
The examiner asserts that when the teachings of the admitted
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007