Appeal No. 2005-2530
Application No. 10/612,129
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lee and Lupinski.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee, Lupinski and Hiroshi.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-15
over Lee and Lupinski, the Examiner relies on Lee for teaching a
semiconductor integrated circuit chip attached to an electrically
insulating substrate through a protective adhesive layer and on
Lupinski for teaching a protective polymer layer for adhesion
(answer, pages 3 & 4). The Examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to provide such preactivated polymer between the
chip and the insulating layer to benefit from the void free
adhesive bonding provided by the polymer (answer, page 4).
Appellants argue that Lupinski does not disclose a
preactivated polymer layer used with an insulating substrate in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007