Appeal No. 2006-0364
Application No. 10/068,400
Appellants do not set forth a separate substantive argument
with respect to either of the appealed claims 25, 32 or 39.
Accordingly, claims 25, 32 and 39 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Oxman, like appellants, discloses a method for
bonding an IC chip to a substrate of reinforced epoxy resin with
a thermosetting adhesive wherein the adhesive is cured by
irradiating with near infrared energy. As acknowledged by the
examiner, Oxman does not teach that pressure is applied to the
chip during cooling. However, as explained by the examiner,
Uchiyama evidences that it was known in the art to apply pressure
to a chip against a circuit board during the cooling step.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007