Appeal No. 2005-2530
Application No. 10/612,129
relation with contact pads (brief, page 5). Appellants further
assert that neither of the references discloses a plurality of
contact pads disposed on the first surface of the substrate and
the second surface of the substrate being directly attached to
the polymer layer (brief, page 5; reply brief, page 2).
In response, the Examiner argues that Lupinski was relied on
for teaching a preactivated polymer layer for attaching the
active surface of a semiconductor chip to an insulating substrate
and providing void free adhesive bonding (answer, page 7).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that Lupinski was only relied
on for using a polymer layer for adhesive bonding, and not for
teaching a plurality of contact pads on the substrate being
attached which is actually shown by Lee (answer, page 8) to
include a protective adhesive layer used with an insulating
substrate (answer, page 9).
As a general proposition, in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings
of the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007